Would you accept a 30% income reduction to help your employer be more profitable?

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Baseless generalization, but ok.




So that's your average wage considering you work sometimes, and don't work sometimes. It sounds like your hourly wage is higher, you just don't work much. Nothing stopping you from picking up part time work in the mean time. If I make $100/hr but only work 2 hours a day, can I complain too?




You certainly have a weird way of looking at the world.

My hours are limited due to the constraints on the industry that are out of my control. If all companies in my industry charged twice as much for the service I wouldnt have a problem.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

Yes it’s the rich people’s fault that I took out that credit card loan to go take a vacation!


https://www.lowestrates.ca/news/quar...2018-bmo-25484

I'm not assigning blame, I'm telling you how it is.

If the average person had the skills to think critically and logically, we wouldn't be in any number of messes we find ourselves in.

That's just not the way the world works.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I don't really understand your point. Are you saying education is overrated?

I'm saying its one of the most dramatic allocations of resources in human history. People just take it for granted that 2-4 years of your life should be thrown away on education that will leave you finacially worst off than ever before.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

One can make the argument that "renting" cars and homes is a more financially responsible way to live, but typically ownership of those things is linked to a higher standard of living. Of course there's societal pressure to "keep up with the Jones'" that can drive people into debt.

What in the hell is a standard of living? This is a term that means nothing in this context. Standard of living generally correlates to health and not ease of getting donuts.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Student loans is an interesting example though. Just like wages, things have gradually moved out of whack.

They're out of whack because people are pushing them out of wack

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You used to be able to get through post secondary with reasonable loans, or working summers and living at home, etc. Now you can't. Tuition has skyrocketed.

Why?

No it's a simple supply and demand curve, an over supply of education has created a scenario where people aren't able to be compensated for their education.

Not to mention were loosing the most valuable years of our life perusing degree home and car.

Its the same old story time and time again, people try to butt heads with the fundamentals of natural systems.

You have too few birds and you end up with too many spiders.

Economics is a descriptor of a complex ecosystem it is not an open end replacement of a pre existing eco system.

The harder you create equality the harder nature/the system will create backlash.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

As a society we are wealthy. But that wealth is being redirected. Wealth is being consolidated at the top 1%, while it is being extracted out of the rest of us.

This is complete nonsense.

When you take on debt you give money to these people.

They get it for life and your at a disadvantage for life.

It really is that simple.

If you save money instead of engaging in rent seeking behavior, you are able to compete with the rich instead of supporting them.

[misher]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

No it's a simple supply and demand curve, an over supply of education has created a scenario where people aren't able to be compensated for their education.

Not just that, but many more people are seeking education as a %. Before government subsidies could help universities keep fees low but the per a student funding has greatly decreased as government funding has not risen with enrollment. This isn't the government's fault, the money just isn't there and we'd have to decrease our quality of education greatly if we wanted to make it cheaper. Schools have been forced to seek additional funding either by raising fees, development, or charging international students.

[yaletown_fella]

To clarify my earlier post I believe in an opt-in basic income (for adults aged 25-65 who choose to opt out of existing welfare and social housing ) , half of which will be funded by laying off beurocrats, case workers, and closing social services offices (with the exception of disability). The other half would be funded by a 10% luxury consumption tax on Amazon, Netflix, air travel, luxury vehicles, the tech sector and other non-nessessities. In addition to the basic income acting as stimulus to local economies, the consumption tax and government beurocrat layoffs I just mentioned would easily pay for it. Just like Andrew Yang's plan south of the border, there would be no income tax increases.

I would exempt rent, food, basic phone and internet plans, diapers, basic toiletries, transit and gasoline from the value added tax/consumption tax.

Basic income essentially gives everyone a raise . It's not socialism, it's capitalism that dosent start at zero.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

I'm saying its one of the most dramatic allocations of resources in human history. People just take it for granted that 2-4 years of your life should be thrown away on education that will leave you finacially worst off than ever before.

Numerous studies have proven that the cost of a post secondary education is paid back multiple times in earnings over the life of the person getting the degree. Even for arts degrees.

What in the hell is a standard of living? This is a term that means nothing in this context. Standard of living generally correlates to health and not ease of getting donuts.

Food, shelter, security. Those things are all enabled with money.

No it's a simple supply and demand curve, an over supply of education has created a scenario where people aren't able to be compensated for their education.

Huh? Like there's an issue supplying education?

When you take on debt you give money to these people.

They get it for life and your at a disadvantage for life.

It really is that simple.

If you save money instead of engaging in rent seeking behavior, you are able to compete with the rich instead of supporting them.

Going into debt to accomplish something, ie financing, has been around since money has existed. Of course moneylenders make money, but so do people borrowing money to finance something bigger. You know every successful organization holds debt right? It's cheaper than equity financing almost all the time.

You're acting like instead of borrowing, people should just have money. How do you think it's possible for rags to riches stories to happen? Albeit far less than in the past.

Borrowing and financing are the keys to modern economies. Do you have a better, proven way?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

You sure?

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/...015009-eng.htm

There may have been a bubble during and after ww2 that is not shown on the link...but any "flooding" that occurred after during/after is overshadowed by woman entering the workforce in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

Yes... I'm sure.

Many men left their civilian jobs to fight for their country during the First and Second World Wars. These jobs needed to be filled and, in the Second World War in particular, women quickly stepped forward to meet the surging demand for workers in a greatly expanding Canadian wartime economy. At the beginning of the war, approximately 570,000 women worked in Canadian industry, mostly at clerical jobs. Five years later, almost a million women would be employed, with many working in traditionally male factory jobs.

Initially, there was a reluctance to allow women into new fields of employment. As the war proceeded, however, it became evident that if the country was to make the most of its resources, women’s contributions would be vital. Many new factories were established to manufacture guns, ammunition, aircraft, ships and more, and women soon could be seen in almost every factory working alongside their male counterparts. This shift in gender roles took some getting used to, but by the end of the war, women had proved to themselves and to the country that they could do any job a man could—and do it well!

After the Second World War ended, incentives for women workers—such as company day care centres—ended and they were encouraged to leave the workforce. Many did stay on to work in the growing service industry, however. The war years had changed the face of Canada’s workplaces forever.

https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remem...-war/homefront

Wartime Changes
But changes have taken place. You simply can't get away from the facts. There are now about one million women gainfully employed in Canada. This represents more than a quarter of the working force . It means that there are almost twice as many women working now as in 1939. Nearly one worker in every three in Canadian industry is a woman.

http://wartimecanada.ca/sites/defaul...0the%20war.pdf

The changes to female participation during the war era were am much more sudden shock than the slower changes across the following decades, while the huge total increases seen before the neoliberal era were simply not associated with wage stagnation and instead the wealth of the middle class rose relentlessly from the Keynesian era right through until the neoliberal era. I can understand why the women in the workforce angle might seem like an interesting theory but it just doesn't pan out.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

To clarify my earlier post I believe in an opt-in basic income (for adults aged 25-65 who choose to opt out of existing welfare and social housing ) , half of which will be funded by laying off beurocrats, case workers, and closing social services offices (with the exception of disability). The other half would be funded by a 10% luxury consumption tax on Amazon, Netflix, air travel, luxury vehicles, the tech sector and other non-nessessities. In addition to the basic income acting as stimulus to local economies, the consumption tax and government beurocrat layoffs I just mentioned would easily pay for it. Just like Andrew Yang's plan south of the border, there would be no income tax increases.

I would exempt rent, food, basic phone and internet plans, diapers, basic toiletries, transit and gasoline from the value added tax/consumption tax.

Basic income essentially gives everyone a raise . It's not socialism, it's capitalism that dosent start at zero.

Hundreds of billions in costs for basic income is not going to be covered by laying off a few thousand bureaucrats or a luxury tax.

[misher]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Hundreds of billions in costs for basic income is not going to be covered by laying off a few thousand bureaucrats or a luxury tax.

I didn't realize Netflix is a luxury.
Anyway I think people who support a basic income are way too early to the game. Maybe in 20-30 years when we have robot farmers and construction workers. We have been increasing each individuals production yes, but we've also increased consumption to match. So unless we all cut back on our consumption or increase production even more theres no room for a basic income.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Not a chance in hell. I'd rather be unemployed and looking for a new job than to feed further into the capitalist system than I have to. The thought of it even is slightly infuriating.

100% this. I swear this entire website is full of people who've never opened a book on economic theory that wasn't endorsed by milton friedman or Friedrich heyak.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Hundreds of billions in costs for basic income is not going to be covered by laying off a few thousand bureaucrats or a luxury tax.

If every flight purchased in Canada had an extra $50-100 VAT tacked on (variable/progressive luxury VAT) that would alone raise tens of billions for UBI. At most UBI in Canada ($1000 a month for persons aged 25-65 who opt out of other welfare programs) would cost 150-200 billion. This is once you deduct the number of children , youth under age 25, and seniors, and disabled or welfare people out of the equation. People who are disabled or on welfare can choose to forgo their existing benefits for UBI or continue to recieve their existing benefits. At most 15,000,000 Canadians will be able to recieve UBI.

There were 149,000,000 flights in Canada (2017) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1...pid=2310025301
Lets assume 2/3 of those are not claiming the flight as a tax deduction. That generates 4.5-9 billion dollars from flights alone (depending on whether each flight has a $50 or $100 surcharge. Then all you need to do is find 10-20 other sectors to slap on a 10 or 20% luxury tax. That would easily fund 100-150 billion of the 200 billion pricetag

You need to keep in mind, If I would run the country, people are not allowed to compliment existing benefits with UBI. It is very affordable if it is an opt-in UBI.

You're not going to die if you don't go on vacations or watch Netflix or order Amazon. Flights are the absolute worst thing for the environment. On the flip side, someone like me who is trapped working for low wages could suffer from a breakdown if they are forced to live in a shared living situation with strangers. If everyone has a $1000 UBI, they can afford to live alone as long as they are frugal . And they wouldnt have to be forced to live in a public housing complex full of roaches. UBI would act as the ultimate stimulus for the private sector. Milton Friedman was for it!

Basic income would take the economic boot off our throats and allow us to save and invest in our dreams.

UBI in Canada would easily be 30-40% funded by creating an opt-in system (slowly dismantling welfare and laying off all social workers and social service beurocrats) . The rest would come from a variable 10%-20% progressive VAT on all non essential items.


Most people who oppose UBI come from privileged wealthy backgrounds, work in white collar government jobs, are well-connected or are lucky enough to have high IQs required to succeed in STEM fields.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

If every flight purchased in Canada had an extra $50-100 VAT tacked on (variable/progressive luxury VAT) that would alone raise tens of billions for UBI. At most UBI in Canada ($1000 a month for persons aged 25-65 who opt out of other welfare programs) would cost 150-200 billion. This is once you deduct the number of children , youth under age 25, and seniors, and disabled or welfare people out of the equation. People who are disabled or on welfare can choose to forgo their existing benefits for UBI or continue to recieve their existing benefits. At most 15,000,000 Canadians will be able to recieve UBI.

There were 149,000,000 flights in Canada (2017) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1...pid=2310025301
Lets assume 2/3 of those are not claiming the flight as a tax deduction. That generates 4.5-9 billion dollars from flights alone (depending on whether each flight has a $50 or $100 surcharge. Then all you need to do is find 10-20 other sectors to slap on a 10 or 20% luxury tax. That would easily fund 100-150 billion of the 200 billion pricetag

You need to keep in mind, If I would run the country, people are not allowed to compliment existing benefits with UBI. It is very affordable if it is an opt-in UBI.

You're not going to die if you don't go on vacations or watch Netflix or order Amazon. Flights are the absolute worst thing for the environment. On the flip side, someone like me who is trapped working for low wages could suffer from a breakdown if they are forced to live in a shared living situation with strangers. If everyone has a $1000 UBI, they can afford to live alone as long as they are frugal . And they wouldnt have to be forced to live in a public housing complex full of roaches. UBI would act as the ultimate stimulus for the private sector. Milton Friedman was for it!

Basic income would take the economic boot off our throats and allow us to save and invest in our dreams.

UBI in Canada would easily be 30-40% funded by creating an opt-in system (slowly dismantling welfare and laying off all social workers and social service beurocrats) . The rest would come from a variable 10%-20% progressive VAT on all non essential items.


Most people who oppose UBI come from privileged wealthy backgrounds, work in white collar government jobs, are well-connected or are lucky enough to have high IQs required to succeed in STEM fields.

The GST/HST brings in about $40B a year. Is it only applies to “luxury items” it brings in maybe $20B at 5%. To get to $150B you estimate the program would cost the rate of the “luxury” tax would have to be over 40%. At a rate that high people would turn to the black market and actual revenues would be far below that.

Realistically, to raise $150B the feds would have to raise taxes across the board by about 50%.

At a $1000 it wouldn’t be better than most existing programs (if you have kids welfare is higher) so it won’t lure many people out of the welfare system.

The problem with UBI is there is pretty much a one-to-one ratio of people in the workforce to recipients, so every worker has to pay their own UBI cheque. The other problem with UBI is most of the money would just fuel inflation: if 15 million people have an extra 1000 in their pocket, what is going to happen to rent?

I understand that lower income people are struggling, but I don’t think UBI is a solution.

[misher]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The GST/HST brings in about $40B a year. Is it only applies to “luxury items” it brings in maybe $20B at 5%. To get to $150B you estimate the program would cost the rate of the “luxury” tax would have to be over 40%. At a rate that high people would turn to the black market and actual revenues would be far below that.

Realistically, to raise $150B the feds would have to raise taxes across the board by about 50%.

At a $1000 it wouldn’t be better than most existing programs (if you have kids welfare is higher) so it won’t lure many people out of the welfare system.

The problem with UBI is there is pretty much a one-to-one ratio of people in the workforce to recipients, so every worker has to pay their own UBI cheque. The other problem with UBI is most of the money would just fuel inflation: if 15 million people have an extra 1000 in their pocket, what is going to happen to rent?

I understand that lower income people are struggling, but I don’t think UBI is a solution.

Thank god someone realizes that it would just get lost on inflation.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The GST/HST brings in about $40B a year. Is it only applies to “luxury items” it brings in maybe $20B at 5%. To get to $150B you estimate the program would cost the rate of the “luxury” tax would have to be over 40%. At a rate that high people would turn to the black market and actual revenues would be far below that.

Realistically, to raise $150B the feds would have to raise taxes across the board by about 50%.

At a $1000 it wouldn’t be better than most existing programs (if you have kids welfare is higher) so it won’t lure many people out of the welfare system.

The problem with UBI is there is pretty much a one-to-one ratio of people in the workforce to recipients, so every worker has to pay their own UBI cheque. The other problem with UBI is most of the money would just fuel inflation: if 15 million people have an extra 1000 in their pocket, what is going to happen to rent?

I understand that lower income people are struggling, but I don’t think UBI is a solution.

EI and childrens benefits are another 40 billion so that would also be deducted form the $150 billion.

$100 tacked onto every flight won't deter travel-obsessed people from traveling. Look at the total cost of flights today, yet people are still obsessed with traveling.

Same with $5 tacked onto every Uber or Lyft ride. Or a $2 meat tax.

Then you just need to find 10 other luxury sectors to tax at this level and it becomes very easy to cover the remaining 110 billion.

Consumption tax is a far more efficient way of harvesting the gains from the elites who otherwise shelter their gains in tax havens.

What do you propose as an alternative? Any intellectually honest and informed person working in the STEM sector will admit that automation will result in a huge net loss of jobs in the millions, It will NOT create an equal number of new jobs because this would cancel out any of the savings and defeat the entire purpose of companies investing in this technology in the first place. Comparing it to the industrial revolution is just more lazy thinking.

The STEM sector is only 2% of the workforce at most. Yet the bricks and mortar retail , customer service, and call center jobs are over 15% . Basic math proves it's impossible to squeeze all these (soon to be) unemployed people into so few jobs. And even if new jobs were magically created , not everyone has the IQ or stress tolerance for these rigorous and demanding tech sector jobs.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by misher

Thank god someone realizes that it would just get lost on inflation.

Why do otherwise intelligent people resort to the lazy inflation argument? I think you are thinking about a socialist form of UBI whereby there are no program cuts and people on disability and welfare will also receive UBI. I am advocating for a centrist center-libertarian form of UBI.

I notice a lot of UBI opponents are obsessed with "printing money" when all it requires is reallocating existing funds, finding efficiencies and more efficient progressive consumption taxes.

Laying off 100,000-200,000 civil servants (which is not as tough as it sounds in an age of automation) would generate another 20 billion in savings from not paying out wages , benefits, pensions. Many government white collar civil servant are going to be automated anyway.

You could find another 2-4% savings off the pricetag of UBI by scrapping homeownership tax credits. And God forbid, I talk about reasonable cuts to outdated education. We will have to dramatically restructure education when lower tier legal, book-keeping and radiology jobs are a couple years away of being completely automated.

A UBI is not meant to be an income replacement, it's an income supplement that eliminates the risk of involuntary homelessness.

If someone was to raise their prices with $1000 people would just take their money elsewhere, it's that simple. UBI wont change consumers existing price conciousness. Rentals in Alaska look reasonably priced to me and the population there receives 1-2k from a state level oil sector UBI. The Basic Income in the Republican State of Alaska is proportionately higher than what Andrew Yang is proposing in the US. Take a look at the rental prices in Alaska and compare them to Northern Alberta https://www.zillow.com/ak/rent-houses/

I also support rent control on lower cost units as a safeguard against predatory landlords or landlord cartels.

Another 25 billion of savings would be generated when the UBI is circulated back into the economy when the consumer spends it. We seem to have no problem with billions of dollars in corporate welfare packages for big banks or GM, but stimulus for the people?? The outrage!!

[yaletown_fella]

Re: acottawa and Misher.
I've ranted a lot , and I think Andrew Yang is much more coherent and concise when it comes to addressing major concerns and critique of UBI.

https://youtu.be/sI1Xwre4DBI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DHuRTvzMFw&t=2244s

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

Re: acottawa and Misher.
I've ranted a lot , and I think Andrew Yang is much more coherent when it comes to addressing your concerns.

https://youtu.be/sI1Xwre4DBI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DHuRTvzMFw&t=2244s

Yang is proposing a large VAT tax, large cuts to existing social programs and his math still doesn’t add up.

https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/a...roposal-add-up

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Yang is proposing a large VAT tax, large cuts to existing social programs and his math still doesn’t add up.

https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/a...roposal-add-up

A 10% VAT is not large by any means. It is only half the European level. Like I said, this UBI program is even more easily affordable if you slapped a 20% luxury VAT on air travel, Uber, Netflix and other luxury non essentials.

"Economically, there are also lingering questions about the feasibility and long-term benefits of providing every American with a $1,000 guaranteed monthly income"

He is not proposing to give 350 billion people $1000. This is only for adults 18-65, who will only qualify if they opt out of existing housing benefits, disability, welfare programs.


"Much of the cost and effectiveness of the program will depend on whether it replaces existing safety net programs, like food stamps, housing assistance, or Social Security and Medicare, or if it's an addition to those programs"

The editor of the article has no idea what Yang is proposing or is conveniently ignoring it. Yang clearly states his UBI is NOT an addition to existing programs.

Also the studies (like the infamous Finland study) cited in the article biased and only give UBI to people who have been dependent on welfare their entire lives. I dont mean to sound insensitive but most of these people who have lived on welfare their whole lives (not to mention in Finland which is full of alcoholism) dont understand basic budgeting or delayed gratification.

If you gave $1000 a month to an underemployed guy like me, Id be a millionaire when I retire. NONE of these studies have given a basic income to underemployed young people.

I'm not going to even get into the fact the article link you posted is propaganda hit piece put out by the corporate media giant ABC. All corporate media and big donor politicians prey profit on peoples economic insecurities, discontentment, and declining mental health. Thats how Trump (aka Rupert Murdoch, Wilbur Ross, Saudi Royalty ) was elected, the swing states lost 4 million manufaturing jobs and people were desperate for change. Thats why a reality TV clown was elected in 2016.

Trump's campaign blamed the effects of automation and the winner take all economy on immigrants. Trump is not the disease itself, he's the symptom of a much bigger economic disease: of brutal winner take all economy, automation and a record low labor force participation.

[scryer]

How did this thread blow up to be 4 pages?

To answer the question: hell no.

[BillM]

It depends on what percentage of the profit I would receive in exchange.