69
submitted 5 days ago by Bebopalouie@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 16 points 5 days ago

I could scrape by with $16k a year, even in a high cost of living area. I'd have to get a roommate or find other creative living arrangements, and sacrifice a lot of my current life's comfortable trappings, but I could do it.

My main question is, should it be one minimum income across Canada, or adjusted by municipality through its own metric or using the military stipend rate as a baseline?

Carney wants to talk a big talk on efficiencies. Streamlining welfare to achieve the basic goals of: is an individual's health needs met, is an individual's housing needs met, is an individual's basic expenses needs met, would likely reduce a lot of the duplicitous services that oversee small segments of people's needs.

I know MP Leah Gazan would be happy to see this come to the House of Commons. If it does I'll let my local MP know I support it.

[-] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 17 points 5 days ago

I think adjusting by municipality is a bad idea.

A flat basic income across the country promotes migration to lower COL areas. An adjusted basic income promotes migration to higher COL areas in order to get a bigger income. While different areas having different COLs is pretty unavoidable, I don't think making high-COL areas more attractive is a good idea.

I'm also not a huge fan of adjusting for couples vs. single people. I get why they do it, it's an easy way to save money. But the actual expenses of you living with a roommate (as you suggested) compared to you living with a roommate that you're also sleeping with, don't change very much. (I have similar complaints about household income being used for basically everything except taxes, but that's a little further off topic.)

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 6 points 5 days ago

Ironically, I think that the positive impact of UBI is probably well enhanced by various free-market processes. There's the cost of living balance you mention, but it also makes it easier for market forces to affect wages. When people don't literally have to work simply to survive, it gives them the option to say "no, this job sucks, I'm walking away from it" much more easily. That means that employers will need to be more attentive to their employees' needs if they want to keep them.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 days ago

That means that employers will need to be more attentive to their employees' needs if they want to keep them.

Or that they'll lobby even harder to expand TFW slavery.

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 4 points 5 days ago

If they had that sort of lobbying power I doubt we'd see UBI to begin with. Regardless, "evil people might thwart it!" Is not a very good reason not to try to do good things.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago

Regardless, "evil people might thwart it!" Is not a very good reason not to try to do good things.

It wasn't my intention to suggest that we shouldn't try it.

I was merely (and cynically) pointing out the forces who will be pushing against the efforts to do some good for society.

this post was submitted on 29 May 2025
69 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

9739 readers
606 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