Controlled rent would also be fantastic and has worked in economically diffuclt times like COVID. I don't see why it wouldn't work again during the recession we are spiralling towards.

Explain to me why landlords didn't just jack rent payments in 1960s. Why did people back then have money left at the end of the month?

I got a good idea. How about mega corps actually start paying taxes?

UBI helps the most at need the most. Taxation reduction requires income.

Every successful social programme requires the proper taxation of rich bastards. That's a history thing.

If you can't figure that out, I don't need to read the rest. We do not applaud the tenor if he can't clear his throat.

Ubi is just a reform of progressive taxation so that it goes slightly negative as you get closer to zero income instead of stopping at zero percent.

In my opinion, the main appeal of UBI over other forms of support is that

• the absence of means testing ensures no one falls through the cracks, and
• you never earn less by working harder.

That's not to say that you can't design a support system that doesn't have these issues, but with UBI, they're just trivially non-existent. No need for extra work in figuring out how to fix these problems.

I don't see how funding would be an issue unless you count the savings from letting people fall through the cracks. Shouldn't it cost the same to effectively support people in need regardless of how you distribute the money?

the lenghts people will go to keep capitalism.

$10,000,001+: Taxes increase by 10% per $10,000,000 earned to a cap of 80%

You are too kind.

Because wealth hoarders would still make HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS, even if you taxed 80%.

The tax rate should be 100% past a certain amount of wealth. We should de-incentivize wealth hoarding, and encourage people to retire once they've made enough to sustain their family for a lifetime. If they choose to keep working, it should basically be volunteer work after a certain point, and wealth should be redistributed back to everyone else.

If we put a hard cap on wealth, everyone would be in a position to retire young and not struggle through their entire life. This is what we should be striving for.

Canada would need to make almost $100 billion more in revenue every year just to cover UBI, and that does not include anything else Federal revenue is used for.

UBI means a net tax reduction, with clear quality of life improvements, as long as the obvious social spending programs are eliminated. The higher the UBI, the more programs are obvious elimination candidates. UBI is simply tax credits offsetting tax debits. As obvious examples, the basic tax exemption means rates above the exemption need to be higher to raise the same revenue as if there were no basic exemption. When investment income gets tax breaks and no payroll taxes, employment and business income needs to be taxed higher for same revenue. Lower business income tax rate? = higher employment taxes.

UBI always costs 0. Just net credits and debits that equal 0. Drastic discretionary budget savings means net tax cuts.

If you did work in some reasonable proportion of married couples, it might get close to break even. Then remember that CPP, OAS and EI all disappear, and whatever funds they have would contribute to UBI. CPP at max draw by itself is almost as much UBI.

Then, for people that also have some other form of income, some quantity of the UBI would be taxed back.

I'm not saying that it really does scale up, but your analysis is overly simplistic.

No. UBI.