This version of UBI (granted, without the U), would cost $43B [0]. I'm guessing what would actually be implemented would cost more, but $720B is certainly too high.

Your post doesn't mention:

- Savings from scrapping other welfare programs

- Decreased healthcare and law enforcement costs and other economic benefits of bringing millions of people out of poverty

- Massive stimulus leading to increased government revenue

I'm not saying it would be cheap, but your post only includes the costs and not the benefits.

[0] https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-would-a-guarant...

This is what I often see from UBI supporters though.

For example, why is my post too high. I state simply, "here are the number of people over 18" and "here is the amount to pay".

You say "Oh, that's too high." What?. Why! Why is it too high. What part of it. It is very, very, very simple math.

Instead, you quote an article from Macleans. Yet that article says Ontario's (not Canada's) UBI program suggested at the time, wasn't really UBI! And that on top of that, it was a flawed study!

In other words, you linked to an article showing how wrong Ontario was. How does this support the assertion that my costs are too high. The Macleans article even supports my position, because it discusses how 'reverse taxation' and 'excluding people' is not UBI, but instead modified, partial welfare. It's not universal, which is the much of the point of UBI.

You say, scrapping other welfare programs. Well, we must look at provincial numbers here, for that is a provincial responsibility.

Here is an example of the costs associated with welfare, child support, and more at the provincial level. And this is Ontario, Canada's most populous province:

https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2019/04/11/socia...

https://www.ontario.ca/page/public-accounts-2018-19-annual-r... (Scroll down to Expense)

"Children's and Social services sector"

So yup, $17B.

What about EI, you say? The savings there? Well, it works as a cash positive. It is paid for by separate EI taxes (paid by employer and employee), has its own fund, and so if you axe EI?

You have to remove $21B from the federal revenue from $312B to $291B. And I should note, that EI covers things like retraining, so you'd actually lose some social programs, if you just axed EI, and moved to UBI all by itself.

So let's just take Ontario, and try to work out welfare for all the provinces. Here's where it gets a little bit complex. In Canada, we have equalization payments. Part of Federal tax is paid to the 'have not' provinces, which are poorer, and therefore need extra capital to maintain an equal quality of life.

This means that some of the federal budget, of that $321B income, is also being used along with provincial funds, to fund things like welfare in some provinces. That means if, say, NewFoundLand pays $x for its welfare budget, maybe even 50% of that revenue might come from the Federal Government.

But, let's just be quick and easy about this, and say Ontario has about 40% of Canada's population (15M), and that the "over 18" bit scales. So, 17B x 2.6 = $44B.

Of course, the "Children's and Social services sector" isn't just about welfare. For example, EI handles retraining, including some 'back to school' programs. That would vanish if it was just dropped, with a move to UBI. And maybe that's OK! But the point is there, and valid, and means it isn't a perfect change-over.

Which means it applies to a generic budget for a huge "Children's and Social services sector" category.

But OK. We've reduced the cost of UBI from $720M to a wonderful $676B. You don't remove EI, because if you remove EI, you remove EI tax.

The other benefits? Sure, they exist, at least, probably. I think they do, too.

Yet.. what does that have to do with paying for it? Understand here, the sheer cost I'm discussing. Please do the math. Please discuss how to pay for it fully.

Because things like "stimulus" and "reduced law enforcement costs" are .. what? Going to equal 4x the entire federal budget? You're literally going to switch to UBI, and the Federal Government will see its budget grow 4x?

How?

You're right - if you don't plan at all and just give everyone 2k per month, it's too expensive. In the strictest sense, UBI is impossible.

In most versions of the plan I've seen, the cost is not as simple as (population over 18) * (monthly amount). If you're looking for a breakdown of the math, check this out:

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/bicn/pages/57/attachme...

srveale, the ENTIRE point of UBI, is:

- universal - basic

Basic costs met. Paid to EVERYONE.

Part of the "cost saving measures" are "not using complex schemes to determine eligibility to programs".

Further, if all you're wanting to do is guarantee a minimum income, that's not UBI! Not even remotely! It's simply a form of welfare, and shifting taxation under the guise of UBI.

Further, the whole concept of "I'm on EI, or I'm on welfare, but if I start working my income will drop, so what's the point" is another core concept of UBI.

When you start whittling away at these core concepts, when you bring back in the 'should this person get it' judgement and work to evaluate, prosecute if fraudulent, side of things? When you bring back in "Your income drops if you have other income" side of things?

You're just invaliding the entire point of it all.

It's not UBI.

So when people discuss UBI, please don't start talking about something entirely non-UBI.

You're arguing against a proposal which nobody in power is seriously advocating. Anyone whose done the same math as what's in your original post can come to the same conclusion that you have.

I've offered up a modified proposal, with links showing actual experts and politicians debating merits and drawbacks, including budgetary analysis. Because there isn't enough money for a naive UBI, we have to make compromises including increasing complexity and risk of fraud, but the general principle remains the same and the benefits are still there. And we already have fraud and complexity - these would be greatly reduced under the proposal, just not completely eliminated.

Based on comments like "I'm on EI, or I'm on welfare, but if I start working my income will drop, so what's the point," I can see that you haven't fully understood the structure of the proposal. There's no way that getting a job would net you less income.

I'm not invalidating anything. Please don't get caught up in semantics.

"Right now, 8% of Federal Revenue pays just the interest on that debt. If interest rates go up, say in a year or two.. so goes up that payment."

Canada has a fiat currency. Thus the Canadian government can set the interest rate on federal debt to zero.

http://multiplier-effect.org/modern-money-theory-how-i-came-...

Permanent ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) is probably a better policy since it reduces the compounding of debt and the tendency for the rentier class to take over more of the economy

OK, read. I still don't see anything but, well, a lot of "this should" and "here's why". Maybe I'm missing something, but where is the for-profit motive for banks to lend, for absolutely no return?

Further, where is the pressure to pay back debt, if there is no interest. When not just run up the debt forever? Just use the banks to create more and more cash, forever? And who cares about the effect on other parts of the economy.

What bothers me with things like this, is they are all band-aids. And not even thought out, as far as I can tell, with how the rest of the economy is going to have to function. To change. To be modified, to fit the new.

I'm OK with change. I don't mind a new system. I see the coming issues with increased automation, agree something will have to be done, but just slapping a patch here and there isn't feasible at times.

You have to remodel the whole, to fit the new.

All I can see here, is "let's just change this", and "who cares what happens elsewhere".

Yet, why would I, as a banker, lend to the government at all? For no profit? And with no ability to force repayment, and no pressure on the government (interest payments) to repay, or even stop borrowing more?

"Maybe I'm missing something, but where is the for-profit motive for banks to lend, for absolutely no return?"

You're definitely missing something, because private lenders are perfectly free to charge interest. ZIRP applies only to federal debt.

"Yet, why would I, as a banker, lend to the government at all?"

Currency issuers never need to borrow. That is an incorrect statement of why Federal debt exists. Federal debt is a savings instrument, and as Europe and other negative interest rate debt has shown, there is still a market for savings instruments even at the zero lower bound.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-15/negative-...

"Negative-Yielding Debt Hits Record $16 Trillion on Curve Fright"

"You're definitely missing something, because private lenders are perfectly free to charge interest. ZIRP applies only to federal debt."

As I understand it, the Canadian Federal debt is held through a variety of instruments, quite a lot of it domestically. EG, Royal Bank, TD Bank, etc.

Whether it is bonds, or some other instrument, they all pay interest. That debt exists, is owed, and yet you're saying "Just don't pay that interest"?

I don't think that's what you mean. I think you're being somewhat terse in your responses here.

For example, maybe you mean "As time passes, and new debt replaces the old". Or, "Stop issuing debit in way $x, and instead, do it in way $y".

Yet the GoC surely does not pay interest for zero reason, or cause. Clearly, there is some reason for using these instruments, such as, getting lenders to ... lend.

If you are advocating an entire policy shift, with massive ramifications to the overall method in which the GoC raises, and treats debt ; OK.. fine. Yet entire economic model shifts aren't easily conveyed by the terseness I'm seeing here.

And the articles you are pointing to, aren't really helpful, nor describe precisely what shift-in-thought you're referring to.

"Whether it is bonds, or some other instrument, they all pay interest. That debt exists, is owed, and yet you're saying "Just don't pay that interest"?"

I'm saying it's wrong to create federal bonds with an interest rate that is far different from zero.

The rules are different between currency issuers (nations with a fiat currency) and currency users (citizens, municipalities, provinces, nations on the gold standard).

Currency issuers have a unique ability to guarantee that you will hold an exact amount of the currency on a given date. No currency user can make that guarantee.

Because currency issuers can guarantee repayment on debt in their own currency, the repayment risk on the debt is strictly and exactly zero. Thus the interest rate on that debt should always be very close to zero if not exactly zero.

The fact that Canadian government debt pays high interest rates merely tells you that the government did things wrong in the past.

Just saw this. Thanks for clarity/responding on your point.

Two things.

First? Interest also represents the reduction in value of the currency unit, over a period of time.

I keep a few thousand hidden around the house. In case of need. Yet, each year... even with 4%, 2%, whatever inflation, that $3000 is worth less. It has less value.

Interest exists for three reasons. Risk, as you talk about above, but also as profit for being nice enough to lend capital, and lastly to combat inflation.

Why would people park their money, and lose both value in that money due to inflationary pressures, AND, make 0% on that capital when they could literally park it many other places and make even double digits?

It seems odd to me, that you completely ignore the for-profit motive in money lending, and the inflation issues in lending. As if they simply do not exist. Even in down markets, historical a wise lender (like a massive bank, which tends to lend to a federal level goverment) makes more by parking that capital elsewhere.

In terms of the Canadian Government paying 'high interest rates', I merely stated that it pays 'market interest rates'.

For clarity, all of the above is Federal.

There are provincial taxes, budgets, etc. SO when I say '25% of people's income is taxed', that's federal tax.