It’s time for Ottawa to seriously study how a guaranteed basic income could replace outdated layers of sclerotic support programs
The prospect of Canada adopting a guaranteed basic income deserves a more robust study.
A private member’s bill that advances a guaranteed basic income for Canadians has no hope of passage, but it does have a good idea should the Liberal government steal.
advertisement
Bill C-223, introduced in the House of Commons by NDP MP Leah Gajan last week, calls for the finance minister to “a national framework for the implementation of a guaranteed living basic income throughout Canada for anyone over the age of 17″. to develop.” Within a year of the passage of the bill, the minister would be required to submit to Parliament a framework for a basic income, and then regularly report on progress in implementing the framework.
“The fact that people in this country are poor is a political choice,” Ms. Gazan told me. “Let’s stop promoting corporations and invest in people.”
The interesting thing about a guaranteed basic income is that its aspects are attractive to conservatives as well as progressives, as it can eliminate the huge bureaucracy and complexities of the welfare state. A guaranteed basic income will not only reduce poverty, but it will also increase independence and responsibility.
A guaranteed basic income could be a stabilizing force for Canada
Most private members’ bills die on order paper, and C-223 as well. But the prospect of Canada’s adoption of guaranteed basic income deserves a more robust study.
This is not to say that research does not exist. There have been pilot programs and reports by both the government and think tanks.
Earlier this year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer report good It shows that a guaranteed income of about $17,000 for an individual and $24,000 for a couple will “cut the poverty rate in almost half in 2022, although this will vary across provinces.” The PBO has set an annual cost of government at $93 billion by 2026.
Basic Income Canada Network, a non-profit organization Study three scenarios. The stripped-down version would offer a single adult a maximum of $22,000 and a couple just over $31,000 and would cost the federal and provincial governments $134-billion annually. This would be paid for in full by increasing federal income tax rates — the highest bracket would go from 33 percent to 37 percent — raising corporate taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent, taxing capital gains at the same level of income, and several existing welfare benefits. termination of programs.
Such huge increases in taxation can stifle investment and lead to high unemployment, resulting in more people relying on guaranteed basic income or other government aid, and producing sustained deficits.
And all this assumes that some kind of asymmetric agreement could be reached between Ottawa and the provinces, which would be commensurate with the regional realities and the financial capacity of each province.
And that’s where we can draw inspiration from, Ms. Gazan’s bill. Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland may set up a task force on the costs and benefits of guaranteed basic income. The task force may be headed by an external authority or senior officers of the department. There must be much greater access for provincial and indigenous governments, and extensive modeling of economic impacts.
The result, if successful, would be Canada’s first gold-plated, fully cost-effective, impact-projecting framework for federally-provincial guaranteed basic income. I’ll give the department 18 months to pull this all together.
The framework can be so unrealistic and costly that it proves that guaranteed basic income will not work. More likely, it will be embraced by one ideological side and rejected by the other. Those on the left may drop the idea, once they see the full impact of removing billions of dollars of unemployment insurance, social assistance and other income support from those who would now be expected to make their way into the world, However support for people with disabilities, and possibly some housing support, will remain.
Those on the right may oppose forfeiture taxation, lack of competition and the inevitability of new social programs on top of guaranteed basic income.
But the current system, put together more than half a century ago, layer by layer, is so complex and cynical that meaningful improvement is probably impossible. Maybe it’s time to replace the whole thing with a simple, guaranteed income that just needs it. Let’s at least take a good, hard look.
DECEMBER 24, 2021
The prospect of Canada adopting a guaranteed basic income deserves a more robust study.
A private member’s bill that advances a guaranteed basic income for Canadians has no hope of passage, but it does have a good idea should the Liberal government steal.
advertisement
Bill C-223, introduced in the House of Commons by NDP MP Leah Gajan last week, calls for the finance minister to “a national framework for the implementation of a guaranteed living basic income throughout Canada for anyone over the age of 17″. to develop.” Within a year of the passage of the bill, the minister would be required to submit to Parliament a framework for a basic income, and then regularly report on progress in implementing the framework.
“The fact that people in this country are poor is a political choice,” Ms. Gazan told me. “Let’s stop promoting corporations and invest in people.”
The interesting thing about a guaranteed basic income is that its aspects are attractive to conservatives as well as progressives, as it can eliminate the huge bureaucracy and complexities of the welfare state. A guaranteed basic income will not only reduce poverty, but it will also increase independence and responsibility.
A guaranteed basic income could be a stabilizing force for Canada
Most private members’ bills die on order paper, and C-223 as well. But the prospect of Canada’s adoption of guaranteed basic income deserves a more robust study.
This is not to say that research does not exist. There have been pilot programs and reports by both the government and think tanks.
Earlier this year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer report good It shows that a guaranteed income of about $17,000 for an individual and $24,000 for a couple will “cut the poverty rate in almost half in 2022, although this will vary across provinces.” The PBO has set an annual cost of government at $93 billion by 2026.
Basic Income Canada Network, a non-profit organization Study three scenarios. The stripped-down version would offer a single adult a maximum of $22,000 and a couple just over $31,000 and would cost the federal and provincial governments $134-billion annually. This would be paid for in full by increasing federal income tax rates — the highest bracket would go from 33 percent to 37 percent — raising corporate taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent, taxing capital gains at the same level of income, and several existing welfare benefits. termination of programs.
Such huge increases in taxation can stifle investment and lead to high unemployment, resulting in more people relying on guaranteed basic income or other government aid, and producing sustained deficits.
And all this assumes that some kind of asymmetric agreement could be reached between Ottawa and the provinces, which would be commensurate with the regional realities and the financial capacity of each province.
And that’s where we can draw inspiration from, Ms. Gazan’s bill. Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland may set up a task force on the costs and benefits of guaranteed basic income. The task force may be headed by an external authority or senior officers of the department. There must be much greater access for provincial and indigenous governments, and extensive modeling of economic impacts.
The result, if successful, would be Canada’s first gold-plated, fully cost-effective, impact-projecting framework for federally-provincial guaranteed basic income. I’ll give the department 18 months to pull this all together.
The framework can be so unrealistic and costly that it proves that guaranteed basic income will not work. More likely, it will be embraced by one ideological side and rejected by the other. Those on the left may drop the idea, once they see the full impact of removing billions of dollars of unemployment insurance, social assistance and other income support from those who would now be expected to make their way into the world, However support for people with disabilities, and possibly some housing support, will remain.
Those on the right may oppose forfeiture taxation, lack of competition and the inevitability of new social programs on top of guaranteed basic income.
But the current system, put together more than half a century ago, layer by layer, is so complex and cynical that meaningful improvement is probably impossible. Maybe it’s time to replace the whole thing with a simple, guaranteed income that just needs it. Let’s at least take a good, hard look.
No comments:
Post a Comment