We should be wary of #UBI for so many reasons, it's hard to cover them all here. I will do a full length post on UBI in Canada and why we should stay far away from it soon.
To summarize (sources at end of thread):
1/10
To summarize (sources at end of thread):
1/10
https://twitter.com/pia_berger/status/1405587851480293376
In practice UBI will be used to destroy/commodify vital social programs. Left-wing proposals exist, but this is the form we're most likely get in reality. The one supported by right-wing economists, billionaires, and the drive of capital to commodify everything possible.
2/10
2/10
If UBI $$$ aren't generous enough to live on, it's a huge subsidy for low-wage employers, allowing them to pay marginalized workers sub-survival wages, especially those stuck in gig-economy hell. Think WalMart using food stamps to lower their wage bill times many billion.
3/10
3/10
A UBI that pays enough for dignified living was estimated by the ILO at about 20 to 30% of GDP in most countries. Probably way more in Canada. It's impossible to imagine the wealthy/corporations agreeing to bear that burden. So how do we fund an adequate version of UBI?
4/10
4/10
Left advocates insist we can have generous UBI on top of existing social programs. Yet to hear anything close to a real proposal for how it would will be paid for in such a case. CBNI's last paper argued a true UBI of $22K/year costs $639B dollars, about 38% of GDP.
5/10
5/10
CBNI suggests funding it by raising the 1st income tax bracket to 75% and eliminating existing income supports like old age security. Only $17B (2%) of the cost would be covered by suggested corporate tax changes. That's just for a $22K/year BI, not livable in most cities.
6/10
6/10
Enough though, $22K/year, to keep workers afloat JUST to the extent that they have to accept marginal employment in low-wage, precarious, probably gig-based industries. If a living wage is likely in the range of $30K-$50K a year, it will never be feasible under capitalism.
7/10
7/10
That's why most UBI advocates fall back to minimal, means-tested and therefore not universal versions. The PBO's most recent analysis found that just to fund a paltry $17K/individual basic income, 3 or 4 households out of 5 (depending on the province) would lose income
8/10
8/10
An analysis of basic income programs by CCPA found that BI schemes were anywhere from 2.5 to 9 times more expensive at reducing poverty compared to existing social programs. Vastly more effective ways of eliminating poverty exist that are not a capitalist scam like UBI.
9/10
9/10
UBI sounds progressive, even radical. It is not. UBI will heighten, not solve the contradictions of late-stage capitalism. That's why, for example, noted reactionary bigot Charles Murray supports UBI as a "grand bargain with the Left." We should not fall into this trap.
10/10
10/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
