[zang]

The benefits are individual, the harms are on a wide scale (a $17000/year program, so the Ontario "pilot", is equivalent to more-than-doubling the federal budget; a taxation scheme would suck the life out of the economy, a deficit scheme would turn us into Argentina).

Comparing a failing libertarian austerity to this is a bit hyperbolic, don’t you think?

A pilot for a few thousand people isn't a UBI pilot, it's a pilot for giving money to a few thousand people.

The intention of most UBI plans around the world is that it replaces many already existing programs (welfare, old age payments, most of disability, etc); not that they’re not in addition of all that. Aside from the fact that UBI increases local spending by giving many people disposable income (many for the first times in their lives), in replacing existing programs it eliminates their separate administration costs.

In addition, it allows for job mobility. Fewer people stuck in dead end jobs simply because of financial need and lack of upward mobility. It means much less repression on competitive employment.

There are numerous studies worldwide that point to GBI/UBI being cost effective. Though from my own experience, it’s almost always the “my taxes better not be paying for this”-crowd complaining about it, even as they’d stand to benefit economically from such a situation.

Even if a UBI were implemented nationally, many would still continue to work (as pilots have already shown). I know I would.

And don't say that OBI was minimum income and therefore not a $700 billion albatross, that's not how OAS works.

I took a tangent path when people started saying $100k in Toronto is a comfortable income.

That others saw my post about raising school aged children while also somehow claiming OAS is on their lack of attention to detail.

 

[wopchop]

The deal they signed requires the $10 a day childcare in writing prior to the expiry.

That said, if it were not renewed, it would be short-lived.

But renewal is anticipated, and discussions have been ongoing.

There is no way they will reach universal $10 a day right now, unless they deal with the budget shortfall. The original goal was by September 2025, which did not happen, so now they are talking about March 2026, which happens to line up with the expiry date.
The other factor will be hiring of ECEs, which is a consistent struggle. Thousands more need to be hired to reach the spaces committed to in the agreement.

 

[Northern Light]

There is no way they will reach universal $10 a day right now, unless they deal with the budget shortfall. The original goal was by September 2025, which did not happen, so now they are talking about March 2026, which happens to line up with the expiry date.
The other factor will be hiring of ECEs, which is a consistent struggle. Thousands more need to be hired to reach the spaces committed to in the agreement.

I concur they will be short on spaces, and if money falls from the sky tomorrow, they will not have enough ECEs to meet their goal for 2026, even 2027 is a stretch.

I expect there is enough money on the table to drive price down, and the feds have already agreed to more money from what I'm hearing, there was some haggling going on as there are other transfers in play.

Ontario has yet to sign the pharmacare agreement, but is expected to.....and there are some other back and forths going on ...

 

[kEiThZ]

The benefits are individual, the harms are on a wide scale (a $17000/year program, so the Ontario "pilot", is equivalent to more-than-doubling the federal budget; a taxation scheme would suck the life out of the economy, a deficit scheme would turn us into Argentina). A pilot for a few thousand people isn't a UBI pilot, it's a pilot for giving money to a few thousand people.

And don't say that OBI was minimum income and therefore not a $700 billion albatross, that's not how OAS works.

Should be further noted that whenever Minimum Income plans have been proposed they are basically designed around topping up income to some kind of poverty threshold. Say LICO. They don't usually have people making six figures getting a top up.

We do have a federal program for seniors that sort of operates like this: Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS). And one of my criticisms of GIS is that it doesn't necessarily bring people up to LICO. Meanwhile, we'll still pay OAS to somebody making six figures as a pension.

I would rather see OAS and GIS replaced with a Guaranteed Min Income that is tied to some ratio of LICO. Say 1.25 x LICO. Or more for those who need assisted living (say 2 x LICO). We should be able to guarantee that no senior lives in poverty. And we should feel no obligation to pay off high income seniors (one of which would be me).

I would say the folks here who dream of turning OAS into some UBI are not at all representative of the general public. I don't think the average voter would happily sign on the tax increases that would necessitate. But I do think a good chunk of voters could get behind the idea that old people should be taken care of.

 

[kEiThZ]

Comparing a failing libertarian austerity to this is a bit hyperbolic, don’t you think?

Is it? Rough math says $17k for 41M people is $680B. And the government still has to fund schools, hospitals, emergency services, defence, etc. Even if we assume that the $680B is offset by personal transfers ($136B), we're talking about $544B in new spending. This is greater than all federal revenue in 2024. It's equal to more than 24% of GDP in 2024. So yes, attempting to simply expropriate and redistribute a quarter of the country's GDP isn't going to be a small impact. I do agree that Argentina isn't the best example. The closest examples to this kind of mass redistribution in recent history are basket cases like Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

The 2024 Federal Budget at a Glance - HillNotes

The federal budget outlines the government’s revenue estimates and expenditure priorities for the fiscal year. It is a key component of the parliamentary financial cycle. The outlook for budgetary revenues and expenses can be found in tables A1.6 and A1.7 of Budget 2024.

hillnotes.ca

There's a way that UBI works without being crazy expensive. But nobody is going to like the math on this one. Take the $136B spent on personal transfers and cut equal cheques to all 41M residents. But that would mean almost everybody getting OAS, GIS, CCB, etc. would get less than now. Meanwhile, my family with $200k household income would get back a multiple of what we currently get for CCB. You sure you want that?

 

[kEiThZ]

The intention of most UBI plans around the world is that it replaces many already existing programs (welfare, old age payments, most of disability, etc); not that they’re not in addition of all that. Aside from the fact that UBI increases local spending by giving many people disposable income (many for the first times in their lives), in replacing existing programs it eliminates their separate administration costs.

I agree that a lot of UBI proposals aim to be more administratively efficient. The problem, however, is that to provide any level of income that would be marginally useful, the income provided would have to be well beyond the cost of current transfers (as seen in the maths above). And therein lies the problem.

On topic though, OAS was never envisioned as UBI. It was an income supplement program designed to keep seniors out of poverty. Along the way, it's become a prize just for reaching age 67, while also failing at its primary purpose so badly, we needed to create a second program (GIS). And now the problem we face is that OAS is growing so rapidly, it's threatening to swallow every other fiscal priority the government has. Housing, infrastructure, defence, healthcare, education, R&D (lowest in the G7) all need more funding.

 

[picard102]

Kind of wild to see how little corporations pay.

 

[DSCToronto]

This short piece on CNN has lots of interesting figures!

https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/26/world/video/nr-enten-tariff-ad

 

[zang]

The 2024 Federal Budget at a Glance - HillNotes

The federal budget outlines the government’s revenue estimates and expenditure priorities for the fiscal year. It is a key component of the parliamentary financial cycle. The outlook for budgetary revenues and expenses can be found in tables A1.6 and A1.7 of Budget 2024.

hillnotes.ca

There's a way that UBI works without being crazy expensive. But nobody is going to like the math on this one. Take the $136B spent on personal transfers and cut equal cheques to all 41M residents. But that would mean almost everybody getting OAS, GIS, CCB, etc. would get less than now. Meanwhile, my family with $200k household income would get back a multiple of what we currently get for CCB. You sure you want that?

Instead of basing it all on current taxation rates, howabout your family $200k pays $8,000 more in taxes but gets the $17,000, and we go back to 1949's 84% income tax rate on the top earners. Does Galen Weston, Jr. really need to be a billionaire?

 

[kEiThZ]

A good preview of where all this is heading is France. The cost of pensions is killing them. Any attempt to reform simply bolsters the far left and far right. And of course, now they face far right governments all over Europe who are just blaming immigrants for why they can't afford those payouts.

 

[kEiThZ]

Instead of basing it all on current taxation rates, howabout your family $200k pays $8,000 more in taxes but gets the $17,000, and we go back to 1949's 84% income tax rate on the top earners. Does Galen Weston, Jr. really need to be a billionaire?

It's $17k per person. So it's multiples of $17k. And while I'd happily pay more in taxes to get that, I still don't think your math works out. Again, we're talking about more than the federal government takes in with all taxes. You can make every billionaire in Canada a millionaire (if they don't move most of their assets to the Cayman islands) and the math will still not work out.

And that math is the first obstacle of many. But I've not come across many UBI proponents who n are honest about the math. They usually just hand wave it away like you do with some vague assertion about administrative savings and quips about billionaires. If there's no way to even have a sincere conversation about the costs involved, there's even less of a chance of convincing the average voter to completely rejig the economy for this.

 

[kEiThZ]

Kind of wild to see how little corporations pay.

Yes and no. Corporate tax rates are too low globally. Unfortunately, unilaterally raising corporate tax rates is also a good way to cause capital flight. And really unfortunate for us, we're a branch plant economy of the US, where companies can easily pick up and move to (and are now actively being pressured to do so).

Capital goes to where it gets the best return. And that return is determined by a combination of taxes and input costs. You start taxing companies more and absent capital controls, they are either moving out and/or reducing compensation.

 

[Northern Light]

A good preview of where all this is heading is France. The cost of pensions is killing them. Any attempt to reform simply bolsters the far left and far right. And of course, now they face far right governments all over Europe who are just blaming immigrants for why they can't afford those payouts.

I agree France has a retirement age/budgetary problem.

A material part of which is a retirement age that is too low.

But I think the persistent muff by French pols who have tried to address this, is that they aim to raise the age and not reinvest any of the savings in higher benefits, for lower-middle or low-income French citizens/residents.

It makes it look/feel like something being done to transfer wealth from the middle/poor to the rich.

To be clear, the French have a certain love of their cradle to grave safety net.....and any change would be controversial and unpopular to some.

But you need to put some sugar in the medicine to make it go down more easily. Of course they long they dilly dally, the harsher the medicine.

We need to both curtail OAS (but reinvest the nominal savings in programs for low income seniors and children) and raise the retirement age, but use the savings on an otherwise balanced CPP to increase benefits, not because that is necessarily needed, but because higher CPP income will mean fewer people qualify for OAS/GIS which will net savings.

 

[Northern Light]

Yes and no. Corporate tax rates are too low globally. Unfortunately, unilaterally raising corporate tax rates is also a good way to cause capital flight. And really unfortunate for us, we're a branch plant economy of the US, where companies can easily pick up and move to (and are now actively being pressured to do so).

Capital goes to where it gets the best return. And that return is determined by a combination of taxes and input costs. You start taxing companies more and absent capital controls, they are either moving out and/or reducing compensation.

I think we agree here that raising corporate tax rates which at historic lows would be ideal; but in the current trade arrangements, absent a higher global minimum corporate tax rate.....there is little latitude to do so.

That tax rate where we are below our global peers (U.S. excluded) is the VAT (or HST). The most common rate is Europe is at or above 17%, we have a combined rate (in Ontario ) of 13%

 

[kEiThZ]

That tax rate where we are below our global peers (U.S. excluded) is the VAT (or HST). The most common rate is Europe is at or above 17%, we have a combined rate (in Ontario ) of 13%

Sure. And which politician will run on raising the GST to 9%?

I applaud you for at least suggesting GST. Usually, the conversations here always devolve to the suggestion that somebody else (the billionaires or corporations) pay for it. Which is of course, not how real life works.