Constraining Canadian Federal Budget during Post COVID Downturn

[Haggis]

Universal Basic Income has entered the discussion....will or won't Canada do it?

The real question is will UBI be Jagmeet's price for keeping Trudeau in power?

 

[brihard]

Universal Basic Income has entered the discussion....will or won't Canada do it?

It would certainly simplify a lot of things, and render a bunch of federal and provincial public servants redundant.

 

[IKnowNothing]

It would certainly simplify a lot of things, and render a bunch of federal and provincial public servants redundant.

I think the mathematical reality of the article posted by OP pretty strongly makes the case that the amount of unneeded transfer in a non-means tested "universal" program would far outweigh the efficiency gains.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Brother we can take a drive together up in the Rideau Heights, Ill be in Kingston in 2 weeks, and we wont be able to swing a stick without hitting ten people who chose a life of social assistance instead of putting in the effort to be better. Life is fucking hard, its a struggle for most of us. And we can either take the easy route or the route that requires effort.

I have drug dealer who are my neighbors. Making wads of illegal cash, and pumping out more and more kids to get more of that sweet Gov dole. I live deep in a ghetto I see this shit all the time. Funny enough, they aren't my worst neighbors. They generally want to keep a low key, which makes total sense.

Having said all this, for those with real disabilities, in what ever form, I am all for supporting them as a society.

My sister-in-law lives in the Compton Street complex. My brother-in-law deals drugs out of the same Toronto Housing apartment at Coxwell and Danforth that his mom and grandma live. I grew up in an area where it was drugs, jail, welfare, or GTFO. I chose to join the CAF and GTFO.

I volunteer with the United Way for outreach, as well as with my church; I know that there is a lot of folks who are in generational poverty. I also know that there are a ton of folks who blinked and ended up homeless overnight. Not everyone is the same in that position.

My glib, perhaps sardonic, comment was in reference to the sudden increase in the Boomer homeless population: This was the same generation that voted year after year to hack away at the social safety net their parents set up post-War. The one that took the Reganomics bait hook line and sinker because the good times were going to keep rolling. The one that favored tax cuts to investing more into OAS and other social supports like Disability. The ones that crashed the economy in 2008 and were cold and callous to Millenials struggling to establish themselves.

Those folks are reaping what they sowed, now that the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[brihard]

Brother we can take a drive together up in the Rideau Heights, Ill be in Kingston in 2 weeks, and we wont be able to swing a stick without hitting ten people who chose a life of social assistance instead of putting in the effort to be better. Life is fucking hard, its a struggle for most of us. And we can either take the easy route or the route that requires effort.

I have drug dealer who are my neighbors. Making wads of illegal cash, and pumping out more and more kids to get more of that sweet Gov dole. I live deep in a ghetto I see this shit all the time. Funny enough, they aren't my worst neighbors. They generally want to keep a low key, which makes total sense.

Having said all this, for those with real disabilities, in what ever form, I am all for supporting them as a society.

My mom lived in the Rideau Heights for years. Dirt poor; stepdad’s badly disabled and she’s been his caregiver for many years. She was a CAF nurse when I was born, but her own struggles messed her up and she got out with only a few years of service. Anyway- fast forward to a few years ago, the two of them had been living (if you can call it that) off his provincial disability for years. They had an OK rent controlled apartment in an increasingly shitty neighborhood (They were literally first on scene one day when their next door neighbour was stabbed to death in a drug robbery). Rent ate up much of the minimal monthly income and it was only a matter of time before they got renovicted to bump the rent up.

My wife and I got them out a few years ago into a condo we own in Ottawa; we heavily subsidize them.

They’re both early 60s, and he’s got maybe six months left on the clock with his cancer. She’ll be a widow a couple years before 65, not currently employed and no work history in the past few decades. She’ll absolutely be able to get some sort of lowest tier job at retail or cleaning or something, and there will be OAS survivor benefits til she turns 65- but again, a pittance. Best case, she finds full time work not much above minimum wage. The OAS survivor benefit would be clawed back fully or very close to it (which is fine), and there you have it- widowed very low income near-senior approaching the notional retirement age of 65, with minimal prospects for improving her situation at this stage in life. Not that we won’t work hard to find her something, of course. If she didn’t have a family member basically providing her with housing and half her groceries, she’d be quite screwed.

So, for these discussions, that’s the real life example my mind always goes to, and it’s not a bad one to illustrate how older Canadians end up in this situation not by choice.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So suppose people agree more should be done for people in difficult circumstances. Is there anyone not in similarly difficult circumstances who will agree that the individual transfers they are currently receiving might be truncated in order to provide more transfers to people worse off? If the answer is no - that people in the middle class need to keep receiving all the new or improved bennies the Liberals have produced in the last 8 years - then what's the point of talking about it?

 

[brihard]

So suppose people agree more should be done for people in difficult circumstances. Is there anyone not in similarly difficult circumstances who will agree that the individual transfers they are currently receiving might be truncated in order to provide more transfers to people worse off? If the answer is no - that people in the middle class need to keep receiving all the new or improved bennies the Liberals have produced in the last 8 years - then what's the point of talking about it?

A few of us in this thread have literally done exactly that, with reference to benefits we either currently, will imminently, or will eventually receive that we could easily get by without without any real hardship. And we aren’t even necessarily talking about increasing transfers to others but, in line with the original subject of the thread, simply curtailing some government excess spending.

So I think the point of continuing to talk about this is that some of us in the thread, at least, are interested in the subject, and are willing to see portions of our own self-interest on the table.

If that’s not you, that’s fine- nobody’s making you talk about it.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The real question is will UBI be Jagmeet's price for keeping Trudeau in power?

I wonder if they're learning their lesson about promises from the "oh, yeah, pharmacare? you'll get it, you'll get it - just sign the line, dude" process going into the deal?

Team Orange can ask for it, and Team Red can commit (on paper, anyway), but until Team Orange coffers & infrastructure are good to go for a snap election, I suspect they'll hang on to the edges of the life raft no matter what.

 

[Halifax Tar]

My sister-in-law lives in the Compton Street complex. My brother-in-law deals drugs out of the same Toronto Housing apartment at Coxwell and Danforth that his mom and grandma live. I grew up in an area where it was drugs, jail, welfare, or GTFO. I chose to join the CAF and GTFO.

You chose wisely my friend. At least IMHO. My position is those who chose differently shouldn't be entitled to a portion of your rewards for your effort. Charity, sure but social benefits, no.

I volunteer with the United Way for outreach, as well as with my church; I know that there is a lot of folks who are in generational poverty. I also know that there are a ton of folks who blinked and ended up homeless overnight. Not everyone is the same in that position.

That's very admirable. I don't, but my wife does a ton. As a VP of a ghetto school she likes being "in the trenches" so to speak.

My glib, perhaps sardonic, comment was in reference to the sudden increase in the Boomer homeless population: This was the same generation that voted year after year to hack away at the social safety net their parents set up post-War. The one that took the Reganomics bait hook line and sinker because the good times were going to keep rolling. The one that favored tax cuts to investing more into OAS and other social supports like Disability. The ones that crashed the economy in 2008 and were cold and callous to Millenials struggling to establish themselves.

Those folks are reaping what they sowed, now that the shoe is on the other foot.

I've said many times on here. I have no pity for the boomer generations. They are responsible for where we are, in every form. And honestly they have sucked up enough resources in their time; and our futures, and the futures of your children and so on should not be spent or mortgaged comforting them in their twilight years. If they have failed get themselves into the right position by now, they cannot look at society to come bail them out. We must look and work forward.

*My one caveat continues for those who are actually disabled, in what ever form. I have no issue with those suffering folks receiving social assistance in any form.

 

[Halifax Tar]

My mom lived in the Rideau Heights for years. Dirt poor; stepdad’s badly disabled and she’s been his caregiver for many years. She was a CAF nurse when I was born, but her own struggles messed her up and she got out with only a few years of service. Anyway- fast forward to a few years ago, the two of them had been living (if you can call it that) off his provincial disability for years. They had an OK rent controlled apartment in an increasingly shitty neighborhood (They were literally first on scene one day when their next door neighbour was stabbed to death in a drug robbery). Rent ate up much of the minimal monthly income and it was only a matter of time before they got renovicted to bump the rent up.

My wife and I got them out a few years ago into a condo we own in Ottawa; we heavily subsidize them.

They’re both early 60s, and he’s got maybe six months left on the clock with his cancer. She’ll be a widow a couple years before 65, not currently employed and no work history in the past few decades. She’ll absolutely be able to get some sort of lowest tier job at retail or cleaning or something, and there will be OAS survivor benefits til she turns 65- but again, a pittance. Best case, she finds full time work not much above minimum wage. The OAS survivor benefit would be clawed back fully or very close to it (which is fine), and there you have it- widowed very low income near-senior approaching the notional retirement age of 65, with minimal prospects for improving her situation at this stage in life. Not that we won’t work hard to find her something, of course. If she didn’t have a family member basically providing her with housing and half her groceries, she’d be quite screwed.

So, for these discussions, that’s the real life example my mind always goes to, and it’s not a bad one to illustrate how older Canadians end up in this situation not by choice.

As I said above and before:

*My one caveat continues for those who are actually disabled, in what ever form. I have no issue with those suffering folks receiving social assistance in any form.

Bring back multi generational homes. It was only a few years ago that you would oft find 3 to 4 generations under one roof.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... As a VP of a ghetto school ...

Which means that, outside of her volunteer work, she's also got a full-time job helping teachers deal with a metric shit ton of kids who need more help than usual.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Which means that, outside of her volunteer work, she's also got a full-time job helping teachers deal with a metric shit ton of kids who need more help than usual.

I would never do that job. My hat is off to them.

 

[IKnowNothing]

As always, Trevor Tombe hits it out of the park on straight up, well-researched and well-presented factual information and insight. His assessment of actual viability for example of the potential split from COP of an APP was of similar caliber and quality.

Would be interesting to see the pushback that would likely follow, and from whom? I suspect a lot would come from Boomers. As a Gen-X’er left outside to play growing up while both parents were out working, I personally could deal with having no OAS at all, for example, since I foresee balancing my (reasonable I think) expectations with my earlier contributions. That said, I have little to no confidence that a socially-over focused government wouldn’t just blast those such ‘savings’ into oblivion like has developed over the last…checks calendar…8.173 years.

Likewise. But that being said. A ten 10-20% haircut to OAS and CCB via tightening means testing / accelerating high income clawbacks seems like a no brainer. Is there a rational argument against it?

Low hanging fruit for a principled, fiscally responsible 2025 government.

 

[brihard]

Likewise. But that being said. A ten 10-20% haircut to OAS and CCB via tightening means testing / accelerating high income clawbacks seems like a no brainer. Is there a rational argument against it?

Low hanging fruit for a principled, fiscally responsible 2025 government.

Rational? Yes. Old people vote at a higher rate, and people tend to vote their self interest.

Is that a principled argument against it? No.

Should LPC and CPC quietly agree to do this one way or the other? Yes. But the reality is that the LPC suffer the most politically for doing so, to the benefit of probably mostly the NDP.

Personally I would applaud a party that advocated further means tested reductions in OAS and CCB, even though I would definitely take a hit in the future from it. Similar I would also support increasing retirement age by a couple of years, again knowing it would probably detrimentally impact me, though not to a great extent. People are living a lot longer and that comes at a cost.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Rational? Yes. Old people vote at a higher rate, and people tend to vote their self interest.

Is that a principled argument against it? No.

Should LPC and CPC quietly agree to do this one way or the other? Yes. But the reality is that the LPC suffer the most politically for doing so, to the benefit of probably mostly the NDP.

Personally I would applaud a party that advocated further means tested reductions in OAS and CCB, even though I would definitely take a hit in the future from it. Similar I would also support increasing retirement age by a couple of years, again knowing it would probably detrimentally impact me, though not to a great extent. People are living a lot longer and that comes at a cost.

I'd argue that's not an argument against the merits of the concept itself, rather a barrier to its implementation. But unfortunately yes a very real one.

Agreed in full.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I have no pity for the boomer generations. They are responsible for where we are, in every form. And honestly they have sucked up enough resources in their time; and our futures, and the futures of your children and so on should not be spent or mortgaged comforting them in their twilight years. If they have failed get themselves into the right position by now, they cannot look at society to come bail them out. We must look and work forward.

We've had two Boomer generation PMs: Kim Campbell, who barely counts, and Stephen Harper. I'm tail-end Boomer, so I was in my 20s and 30s when Canadians started electing a string of federal governments that stabilized and improved the fiscal situation. We had about a 30 year run of that.

Liberals, NDP, and Greens all tend to make a lot of promises to spend more money in order to get elected, mostly on social and environmental programs. I'd be surprised if it's only old people (50+) voting for them and in particular, very surprised if younger generations have been voting disproportionately Conservative for the past 8 years. Most particularly, I doubt the high turnout of younger voters in 2015 was mostly behind the Conservatives.

"It's Boomers' fault" is another myth that can be stuffed.

 

[Remius]

We've had two Boomer generation PMs: Kim Campbell, who barely counts, and Stephen Harper. I'm tail-end Boomer, so I was in my 20s and 30s when Canadians started electing a string of federal governments that stabilized and improved the fiscal situation. We had about a 30 year run of that.

Liberals, NDP, and Greens all tend to make a lot of promises to spend more money in order to get elected, mostly on social and environmental programs. I'd be surprised if it's only old people (50+) voting for them and in particular, very surprised if younger generations have been voting disproportionately Conservative for the past 8 years. Most particularly, I doubt the high turnout of younger voters in 2015 was mostly behind the Conservatives.

"It's Boomers' fault" is another myth that can be stuffed.

Sorry to tell you. It isn’t a myth. It’s well documented and wrote about. You can deny it all you want but it’s a demonstrable fact that policies enacted by boomers over decades have led to where we are now. If you can’t get into a decent LTC or get adequate medical care in your end years, Boomers have themselves to blame for decisions they made,

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sorry to tell you. It isn’t a myth. It’s well documented and wrote about. You can deny it all you want but it’s a demonstrable fact that policies enacted by boomers over decades have led to where we are now. If you can’t get into a decent LTC or get adequate medical care in your end years, Boomers have themselves to blame for decisions they made,

You shouldn't have any trouble stating evidence, then.

 

[CBH99]

My mom lived in the Rideau Heights for years. Dirt poor; stepdad’s badly disabled and she’s been his caregiver for many years. She was a CAF nurse when I was born, but her own struggles messed her up and she got out with only a few years of service. Anyway- fast forward to a few years ago, the two of them had been living (if you can call it that) off his provincial disability for years. They had an OK rent controlled apartment in an increasingly shitty neighborhood (They were literally first on scene one day when their next door neighbour was stabbed to death in a drug robbery). Rent ate up much of the minimal monthly income and it was only a matter of time before they got renovicted to bump the rent up.

My wife and I got them out a few years ago into a condo we own in Ottawa; we heavily subsidize them.

They’re both early 60s, and he’s got maybe six months left on the clock with his cancer. She’ll be a widow a couple years before 65, not currently employed and no work history in the past few decades. She’ll absolutely be able to get some sort of lowest tier job at retail or cleaning or something, and there will be OAS survivor benefits til she turns 65- but again, a pittance. Best case, she finds full time work not much above minimum wage. The OAS survivor benefit would be clawed back fully or very close to it (which is fine), and there you have it- widowed very low income near-senior approaching the notional retirement age of 65, with minimal prospects for improving her situation at this stage in life. Not that we won’t work hard to find her something, of course. If she didn’t have a family member basically providing her with housing and half her groceries, she’d be quite screwed.

So, for these discussions, that’s the real life example my mind always goes to, and it’s not a bad one to illustrate how older Canadians end up in this situation not by choice.

Last night when leaving work, I noticed what I thought was a homeless woman in the back alley where I park. I wasn't sure, and I didn't want to jump to conclusions - Whyte Ave has plenty of people a side street or 2 over, doing this & that

Anyways, she started a fire and was burning a cardboard box. My pockets were stuffed full of handwarmers & I had some extra gloves and a new lighter, so I went over to give her what I had


She was quite polite and nice, didn't have any obvious signs of mental disability (not that it's always obvious, ofcourse) but what really hit me was her age...she must've been around the 65 mark.

We chatted for a few minutes but I had to ask her, and asked forgiveness beforehand for asking questions that were none of my business, why she was out there? (I've dealt with a fair number of the homeless in this city, moreso when I was with EMS - and she just didn't fit the mould for our typical client)

Long story short, interest rates. Explained her situation, which made perfect sense, and in the end her mortgage payments were costing over triple than what they used to



That's someone's mom, or someone's grandma. There was no part of the situation that sat okay with me.

If some sort of UBI would help folks like her, I'm all for it. (But the UBI would have to be introduced smartly, not just CERB for all for life)

 

[Remius]

You shouldn't have any trouble stating evidence, then.

Correct.