"As the market responds to this pricing, emissions will plummet, naturally scaling down the carbon dividend. "
Wrong. Carbon taxes did nothing to stop sales of large trucks. Taxes will not change behavior. We need laws to reduce emissions, not incentives.
$300/ton carbon tax is $0.75c/liter. It's the individual's choice to pay high surtaxes that funds my dividend. One mistake was the carbon rebate not being 100% of forecast tax revenue. But disinformation on affordability excluding the rebate, and a fairly small tax level, was the downfall. Nationalizing industry, and fining years of salary of corrupt politicians, that funds such disinformation is more appropriate than ignoring it.
We need laws to reduce emissions, not incentives.
Categorically inneffective, and as shift in US policy, overturnable with pressure on states/colonies to accept no standards. Slow as well. Carbon tax is necessary because it is internationalizable. "Go right ahead and put a $300/ton carbon tax on our exports, because we are adding it your exports. Do WETF you want with your laws and regulations."
The failure of neoliberal/nazi policy pandering to climate is that "global warming must be a path for a new domestic oligarchy". There is massive international expertise that can provide high value renewable energy for North Americans, including adding it at scale, with massive employment from just installation, but also providing resources to polysilicon refineries, module assembly (with their own local workforces), that gets closed off due to empire hatred for oligarchist protection benefit. Markets work, because functional math skills are pervasive enough that you can do what your neighbour does if you can't math. Politics is corruption of self interest.
"$12,000 annual stipend per school-aged child (Grades 1–12)** to be spent entirely at their own discretion. Traditional public school districts are stripped of their monopoly."
LOL...this clown has obviously never priced a private school in Canada.
Business model is simple. 24 pupils/class = $284K in revenue. Public school buildings/facilities are offered at maintenance cost. There is a profitability path even at high teacher salaries. Private school pricing doesn't suggest anything about their costs. They sell prestige and exclusivity.
Did you write this manifesto? And if not, did you actually read it?
why? I certainly read it.
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.
It's ranting from an idiot.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Sometimes the U in UBI is stated as Unconditional instead of Universal. A core issue with our current system is the "welfare cliff" issue of earning costs people benefits. In your scenario, that person would be making a total of $73k-$83k. If it is employment income instead of investment income, it is free of federal and payroll taxes too. They are free to live with several friends each having a $33k minimum to contribute to mutual aid (no household income conditions either). The plan is criticism proof from concern trolling over poverty.
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.
There is already a mechanism for Provincial variances mentioned in text, where higher GDP provinces would have higher UBI (each province's revenue is 10% of own GDP + 15% of national GDP). It is a misconception that metropolis's have lower government costs/capita than rural areas. Homelessness/Policing/Poverty is a huge section of budget in Toronto. This gives them budget room to supplement UBI, and/or increase property taxes to supplement even more. Cities have the capability of funding UBI on their own with just property taxes, where for sake of argument a single square footage of living space is standardized. Then everyone who lives at the exact average density (person per square foot) level pays no taxes, and those who live in higher density get a subsidy while those in lower density pay net tax.
UBI also lets you move to a cheaper part of the federation. You need to live in Toronto only if you need a Toronto job. Generally cost of living is related to job access. UBI/freedom dividends lets you move (affordably) to someplace before you have an income setup for the new place. Current welfare/unemployment system prevents you from moving.
How about indigenous communities?
A debate to have, but my view is treat them as Canadians, and let them pool their resources for collective or leave the reserve as their individual choice. Certain that would make them better off.
this transition IS the real obstacle.
It is such a quibble. Sure there are school board and other government jobs threatened by change. Gaslighting politicians keeping total control over people, and forcing their misery, gives them more power and the ability to gaslight the miserable that they are their great hope for relief. UBI is not politically possible without a crisis, because it is power redistribution, and politicians hate and contempt of the slave class is absolute, or relatively higher than any appetite for their loss of power.
The excerpt quoted from paper, does allow "long transition proposal" to just gaslight freedom for Canadians after delay and slow transition to full freedom. This would give Canadian negotiators the leverage to return to their nazi colony pedestal from US concessions. The last part of paper, shows that freedom would be extremely attractive to individual US states that are oppressed by their Fuhrer, and the Canadian freedom example would awaken populist freedom calls, where even the highest GDP states get a higher freedom dividend by joining Canada than trying to go alone. Because freedom is contagious and obvious, the US would be forced to retreat from their repression of Canada, or they lose their country.
Very high Canadian UBI over $33k/year $2764/month on average (varies by province) is possible at just a 25% flatish tax rate (there are high income surtaxes) where business and personal rates are the same, and investment income taxed at same rate as employment income.
This is high enough to replace EI, CPP, GIS, OAS and all other welfare programs. The widespread wealth/prosperity of Canadians would generate massive investments in restaurants, retail, entertainment/tourist activities, and huge GDP growth, that needs to pay employees well to take all Canadians' money.
What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Baseball
Basketball
Curling
Hockey
Soccer
💻 Schools / Universities
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
🗣️ Politics
🍁 Social / Culture
🌐 Other Relevant Communities
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca