Skip to comments.Are Canadians worth $20K a year, guaranteed?
Posted on 06/29/2014 9:07:05 PM PDT by Decombobulator
MONTREAL -- A group of academics and activists is trying to drum up interest in an ambitious plan to provide every Canadian with a guaranteed minimum level of income -- whether or not they have a job.
Rob Rainer, a campaign director for the Basic Income Canada Network, envisions a country where everyone is assured a minimum of $20,000 annually to make ends meet.
"For many of us, we think the goal is no one should be living in poverty," Rainer said at a conference on the issue over the weekend at McGill University.
"That's essentially what we're striving to achieve."
More than 100 speakers and participants were on hand for the conference, which focused on the merits of a guaranteed minimum income that would either replace or exist alongside existing social programs.
The idea is hardly new -- the Canadian and Manitoba government conducted an experiment with the issue in the 1970s -- but it has enjoyed a resurgence lately.
Switzerland is expected to hold a non-binding referendum this fall on whether to guarantee every citizen an annual income of Cdn $35,900.
And in the United Sates, the idea has supporters on both sides of the political spectrum.
Proponents on the left argue it represents an opportunity for greater redistribution of wealth, while those on the right see it as a chance to cut back on bureaucracy and return control to people's lives.
The two sides disagree, however, on whether there would be accompanying tax hikes and whether other social programs would remain place.
Almaz Zelleke, a professor at New York University, said guaranteed income has rarely had this much attention in the United States since President Richard Nixon tried to introduce such a program for families in the 1960s. That effort was ultimately thwarted by Congress.
At the conference, Zelleke gave a presentation laying out how a guaranteed income could be offset by taxes and work from a practical, fiscal standpoint. But even she admitted it would be a challenge to get such a plan on the agenda in Washington, D.C.
"To be very honest, it's not on the agenda of any mainstream political party in the United States," she said in an interview, but added a recent surge in media attention has, helpfully, "generated discussion among people who understand that there are problems with the welfare state."
In Canada, the town of Dauphin, Man., was famously the subject of a government pilot project where residents were provided with a guaranteed minimum income from 1974-1978.
The goal of the program, which cost $17 million, was to find out whether providing extra money directly to residents below a certain household income level would make for effective social policy.
The community's overall health improved and hospital rates declined during the period, according to a 2010 study by Evelyn Forget, a professor at the University of Manitoba.
Former Conservative senator Hugh Segal, who officially resigned from his post this month, argued for years in favour of the idea, saying it would provide more effective services at a reduced cost.
Quebec's new minister of employment and social solidarity was also once a prominent advocate.
Francois Blais, a former political science professor, published a book in 2002 called "Ending Poverty: A Basic Income for All Canadians," though Philippe Couillard's Liberal government has made no commitments on the issue.
At the federal level, Rainer conceded it's far from the agenda of the current Conservative government, but said there's a "little bit of traction" among opposition parties.
Liberal Party delegates passed two resolutions related to guaranteed minimum income at a meeting in Montreal this year -- a move Rainer called "pretty significant."
The Green Party also endorses the notion in its party platform.
"The idea is not new, it's not really radical," Rainer said, pointing out that seniors and families with children receive a form of guaranteed income from the government.
"Where it does become more radical is when you get into the area of the working age population, and the idea that people should receive some income whether they are in the labour market or not. That's a fairly radical idea in our culture, because most of us were brought up to believe that in order to survive you have to work."
and how does this plan work if 80% of the country decides not to work?
Is this a living wage?
The first thing that happens is half the country - none of them working- protest to raise the guaranteed minimum income because it is not a living wage.
Yes, but it that what they're striving for?
I mean: If that were their goal, too, then there would be no need to re-attach the umbilical cord, would there?
The other 20% would have their pick of the best jobs.
People who do not work for their keep tend to not care about much in general, except keeping the money rolling in. I can also see the issue of those making just under that or just over that deciding it would make sense for them not to work. I am not an economist, but common sense tells me this is a terrible idea.
Can you imagine how much desperate employers would be willing to pay? Heck how many Americans would go north to sponge up some of that monopoly money?
Sure, the pyramid scheme would probably not last a generation.
I want a pony.
“..President Richard Nixon tried to introduce such a program for families in the 1960s. That effort was ultimately thwarted by Congress.”
Richard Nixon, communist? Who knew?
Sign me up...send me my $20k to Southern Baja, please.
Add an H and they might have something...
But you get the $20,000 regardless of your income. So somebody making $20,000/yr now wouldn’t still have $20,000/yr after this is implemented, he’d get $40,000/yr.
I guess I’d pay that much for a Canuck. A new Buick’s about twice that.
I would say go for it but only for those who can prove that they put out 40 hours per week. At the end of every year congress can argue over what the minimum should be. Savings from eliminating gov’t departments could be split up among the masses.
That's true! Of course, 20% is also about how much of their paycheck they'd get to keep after taxes.
Time to drop flyers all over Mexico announcing this initiative.
” ..... how does this plan work if 80% of the country decides not to work?”
I don’t know but in say we tell all those illegals crossing our southern border about it.
I think the Canucks would be happy with just a six pack of beer and a hockey stick.
They are proposing giving the money whether people work or not...
Then build a mile-wide corridor from the Mexican border to the Canadian border, bounded on each side with razor wire, concrete walls, and guard towers.
I did, for one.
Nixon proposed the Earned Income Tax Credit (E.I.T.C.), he wasn't around long enough to sign it into law, that dubious honor fell to Gerald Ford. Increased under every administration, without exception, since it was signed into law.
A negative income tax, taking from the rich and giving it to the ever present, "deserving poor".
But with plenty of water fountains, vending machines, and toilets on the way. Wouldn’t want anyone to not make it to the Promised Land.
Is that $20K CAD or $$20K USD...
If there is not a difference now, there will be.
You conservatives, everything has to be explained to you. Look, it's a simple three-step process.
Step 1: Guarantee everyone at least $20,000 a year.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Everyone lives happily ever after.
I know that Step 2 needs work. But Steps 1 and 3, they sure do sound great. Very liberal, in fact.
“To me it means someone with no income would get that amount but if you earn say $15,000. it would seem to me you would only get $5,000. and if you earn $20,000. or more you would get nothing.”
Why would you work for $15k per year, plus $5K free, if you could not work and get the whole $20K per year anyway?
No one would work for $15K per year, if they could get $20K per year for free.
So, all jobs would have to pay well over $20K per year to attract anyone.
You probably aren’t going to work hard for $25K per year, if you can get $20K per year for doing nothing.
A negative income tax is different, it’s essentially a top-up where if you make less than $20,000 then you get topped up to 20k. That’s obviously a bad idea because if somebody is currently earning 20k they’d probably just stop working.
A guaranteed income is different in that everyone gets $20,000/year added to whatever they already make regardless of if they earn nothing or if they’re earning millions. The big selling point of the whole thing is that there are no administration costs involved in checking if somebody qualifies for it or not, everyone gets it no questions asked.
What you’re describing is a negative income tax.
A guaranteed basic income is when an amount of money is distributed to everyone unconditionally, regardless of any income they already have. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income )
The article is a bit vague, but I don’t think they’re proposing a negative income tax.
Considering we’re going to have 11 or so million illegals, maybe more, all getting 20K too, and unlimited illegal immigration thereafter, seems like a horrible idea. Not to mention horrible for all the other reasons: We’d probably have to gut the military to pay for it, and then still go broke.
So if you are 30 years old and doing well, you can take the free $20K per year you don’t need, and just stick it in an interest earning account?
That would be nice. Without any interest, at age 60 you have $600K free bucks.
With a good investment plan, you could have $1M free bucks.
Gee and Cruz just renounced his Canadian citizenship!
So this professor is talking about a minimum income of $1,700 per month per adult of whatever age. This is equivalent to $10 per hour for an average job. For comparison, the minimum wage in Ontario has just been raised to $11.
Pretty much, although the 20k would get added to your taxable income so a high earner would have to pay a signification portion of it back in taxes.
Kudos. You caught the South Park reference. Hopefully, the Canadian plan will involve neither gnomes nor underpants.
Ok, I'm done now.
From the 1930s to the 1970s there was a party in Canada called Social Credit. They were dominant in a few provincial governments for years and always had a good representation in the federal government.
Their philosophy was that all the federal government has to do to overcome poverty is print money and send it out to citizens. They were called the “funny money” party but in the Depression when they started, that wasn’t such a crazy idea.
I don’t know if this generation even remembers Social Credit but these guys here seem to be going down that road.
If we could limit our welfare cases to just $29k a year for all benifits we could balance the budget!
Our leaches get almost $40k a year now.
prices immediately react so that cost of living rises 20 grand a year to offset this.
In 20-25 years this makes perfect sense.
But! Until automation technology is in full swing it cannot work.
The day is coming when most people will not work, but they will not depend on others working for them..that is the key thing!
Socialism does not work! Automation does work!
“Pretty much, although the 20k would get added to your taxable income so a high earner would have to pay a signification portion of it back in taxes.”
Then why bother? What’s the point of handing out $20K only to be handed back much of it?
Actually, I doubt it increases the taxes of a high earner at all. The tax difference between $200K and $220K is probably not much. $40K to $60K would be more noticeable.
Can I take mine in gold?
According to the article people would be assured a minimum of $20,000 annually to make ends meet where does it say everyone gets $20,000.? To me it means someone with no income would get that amount but if you earn say $15,000. it would seem to me you would only get $5,000. and if you earn $20,000. or more you would get nothing.
That’s the same way I understand it, Tammy8. ...Yet, for people who think they can live on $20K there is no incentive for them to work.
This is just the starting point...
$20K this year-
Want to work?- $15 dollars an hour- for even a part time
next year? how about $25K- and $18 dollars an hour.
ME... I am holding out for $100K- and $50 bucks an hour
I assert that the entitlements that lifelong dole-sitters get is WAY more than 20k per year,
especially if you figure how much they’d have to make pre-tax to be able to buy all the stuff they get at the expense of those who DO work.
Socialism does not work! Automation does work!
...until the robots start demanding a living wage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.