The Liberal grassroots have backed at least four resolutions for basic income programs at policy conventions including by a vote of 77 per cent at a virtual convention held in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it has never appeared in a campaign platform.

The idea of a basic personal income in Canada gained traction after the pandemic when the government provided an emergency income benefit to millions of Canadians who lost their jobs because of COVID-19 restrictions.

NDP MP Leah Gazan introduced a private member’s bill in 2021 to create a national framework for a universal basic income but the bill never made it beyond first reading.

A similar bill introduced in the Senate by Sen. Kim Pate was in the midst of being studied by a committee when Parliament was prorogued last month.

In 2021, the parliamentary budget officer published an analysis suggesting it would cost $85 billion to provide $17,000 to low-income Canadian families and would cut poverty rates in half.

  • Mohamed
    14·
    2 days ago

    No criteria. Everyone gets the same exact stipend, whether they have 0$ to their name or 1 billion dollars. Its not necessary for UBI to not have criteria, but it should, because:

    1. No criteria means its much cheaper, theoretetically, to administer it.
    2. There’s no weird “subsidy” issues. For instance, if only jobless get UBI, then UBI might incentivize people to not get work.
    3. It may feel weird to give billionaires the same stipend, but it doesnt really matter. In the US, for instance, less than 1% make more than 1 million dollars a year (or was it less than 1% have less assets than 1 million?). That means, stopping paymwnts for those people would reduce the cost by no more than 1%, theoretically. Of course, it could be targetted towards another bracket, say 50000$. Im not sure, but i suspect that it would still be cheaper to give it to everyone, assuming the removal of checks to greatly reduce the cost of administering it.
    4. Further to point 3, giving everyone the same amount could (arguably) make it seem more fair to most people.
    • fourish@lemmy.world
      1·
      22 hours ago

      I’m ok with that if the billionaires contribute to the fund in proportion to their “paper wealth” not just available funds on hand.

      If you’re worth 5 billion on paper (including stock options, real estate holdings, etc.) you should be contributing to the fund based on that value, not whatever cash you have on hand without selling any stocks, etc.

      It also means basic which would preclude living in the most expensive areas of the country. It might mean just enough for shared accommodations and eating a lot of soup in North Ontario while helping to give the black flies a meal supplement.