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 $17,000 to low-income Canadian families and would cut poverty rates in half.
This is even more wishy-washy than Trudeau’s electoral reform promises, so we can safely assume this will also go nowhere.
I’m also sick of hearing about UBI that is income-adjusted, because then it’s just welfare, which is a different concept altogether.
While you’re not wrong, it’s not a terrible idea to work on morphing welfare into UBI over time, rather than a sudden UBI implementation. Of course, that comes with the risk of it never fully morphing to UBI, or people resisting it because they haven’t yet been included.
Bah. UBI is just
- welfare
- UI
- disability
- carbon benefit
- OAP
- CPP
… Rolled into one. You get a stipend based on criteria and it’s one cheque and, yeah.
Tell me why that’s wrong because I really need to know the issue with that.
No criteria. Everyone gets the same exact stipend, whether they have 0$ to their name or 1 billion dollars. Its not necessary for UBI to not have criteria, but it should, because:
- No criteria means its much cheaper, theoretetically, to administer it.
- There’s no weird “subsidy” issues. For instance, if only jobless get UBI, then UBI might incentivize people to not get work.
- 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.
- Further to point 3, giving everyone the same amount could (arguably) make it seem more fair to most people.
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.
The idea of the final goal of UBI is that everyone gets the same basic income, whereas those other options cover specific issues folks might be in. Additionally, that UBI is intended to give you a good living. Like, eventually replace min wage/living wage with UBI.
I think you still need a minimum wage, probably something in the range of 1/1800th of what the UBI is. Otherwise we end up with UBI essentially subsidizing businesses that would get away with paying arbitrarily low wages. Then you just scale up regular income taxes so people can still see a significant benefit from working those minimum wage jobs compared to the current system where benefits can get clawed back so hard that the difference between working full time min wage and being on benefits is negligible.
As far as Liberal leader candidates go Gould is the one I’d prefer. Carney is an investment banker who’s most significant appointments came under two different conservative governments and represents a neoliberal status quo which will fail to address any of the problems Canada is facing. This will set up the CPC for another potential win in the election after next, assuming they don’t win the upcoming one. Gould on the other hand could be at home in the NDP and a lot of her positions could actually be transformative. Sadly, elections are won on vibes and Carney is the vibes candidate.
I like both.Gould and Carney. I think you’re being unfair to the latter; look at his policies in more detail and I don’t think he’s to the right of Trudeau. Right of Gould, sure, but still nowhere near a conservative, especially the current iteration of that party.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/mark-carney-had-a-chance-to-weigh-in-one-of-the-defining-issues-facing-canada/article_8bb1815a-1149-11ef-a91a-43a3f346fa12.html ( archive)
MP Nate Erskine-Smith asked Carney what he would do about Canada’s growing wealth inequality. Carney’s answer was a bit unfocused, but he made two points clearly: 1) Let’s hope wealthy people give more to charity, and 2) We shouldn’t only focus on redistribution.
This is within the context of the greatest wealth inequality that has existed in Canada, ever. Mark Carney is not serious about fixing what ails Canada. As far as not being to the right of Trudeau, economically Trudeau also represents the neoliberal status quo that is not addressing our issues. Even if I grant that is true, it’s not a point in his favour.
OK, sure, but he has good policies on housing and climate change, for example. Let’s not fall into the trap of US voters who didn’t vote for Harris because she didn’t align with 100% of their preferences.
Carney’s housing policies aren’t offering anything that Gould isn’t, except that Gould is promising to make non-market cooperative housing an important plank of her platform, where I happen to think that non-market solutions are the actual fix to most of Canada’s current problems.
But really, I was never voting Liberal anyways on account of their position that the ‘right’ to strike is contingent on the approval of the sitting government.
You’re exactly right on the vibes point. Gould is practically tied at the hip to Trudeau, and would easily give the Conservatives a majority. Honestly I think they’ll win a majority regardless, but Carney might be able to at least keep an official party status.
FWIW all of the major pollsters have Carney at minimum forcing a conservative minority, if not winning outright.
Either of these is acceptable to me. I really want to vote NDP but they have a messaging problem though I think Jagmeet is a solid guy who was quite personable when I met him.
She voted against establishing a citizens’ assembly. I’m not interested in her candidacy. She is saying anything to get elected.
