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.

  • eronth@lemmy.world
    7·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • corsicanguppyEnglish
      3·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • 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.

      • eronth@lemmy.world
        3·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • Kelsenellenelvial
          3·
          15 hours ago

          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.