Guaranteed income....

[Obvious Li]

i was always in favor of the concept but after reading the fraser institutes report i can see how it will never work.......too bad........any thoughts



 Guaranteed income won't work

  by Anthony Furey, QMI Agency



First posted: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 04:59 PM MST | Updated: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 05:07 P



Calls for a guaranteed annual income aren't new. Nor do they all come from the same end of the political spectrum.



Most proposals for GAI involve the government dishing out a lump sum of money to anyone who falls below a certain level. This cash top up is held by some to be the Holy Grail of poverty alleviation, the fix-all answer that's always just around the corner.



The federal Liberals approved a convention motion to back GAI and it may make its way into their 2015 platform.



Conservative Sen. Hugh Segal has been strongly advocating for it, joining a long line of conservative figures including Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and Richard Nixon.



It at first seems like giving away free cash, no strings attached, is anathema to conservative values.



But most versions of GAI come with a major caveat. It's not an addition to the many handouts currently available from the different levels of government. It's to replace all of them.



No more welfare. No more seniors' cash. No more baby bonuses. Just one big cheque sent out from one level of government to everyone earning less than a set income.



It certainly empowers the needy in a way that both left and right could get on board with.



However a report released Tuesday by the Fraser Institute is less enthusiastic.



The authors, Charles Lammam and Hugh MacIntyre, explain that "all three levels of government (federal, provincial, and local) which share responsibility for operating Canada's income support system would have to agree on reform, and some governments would have to abdicate their responsibility in the existing income support system to make way for a single GAI."



Abdicating responsibility? How coy those policy wonks can be!



I think what they mean to say is bureaucrats and politicians will have to give up their addiction to empire building if this is going to work.



It's hard to imagine someone like Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne agreeing to close shop on a provincial project, even if it was entirely duplicated by a new federal program.



More likely, they'd tell the feds "you test the water first" and then once the federal GAI is up and running the provinces would fail to deliver their end of the bargain.



As the report notes, "There is a risk that the bulk of the current system would be preserved, making the GAI ultimately an add-on rather than a replacement program."



The truth is that GAI is a pipedream now more than ever simply because it would require one of the most radical overhauls of government seen in modern times.



The Harper government wouldn't embrace these repeals. After all, they've won over friends by doling out niche tax credits.



The left and unions certainly wouldn't get behind this switch because there's no doubt it would mean a reduction in public sector workers. These days even when reductions through attrition are proposed – where no one is actually let go – the protests begin.



Back in 1971 a Senate committee released the well-publicized Croll report. They backed a form of GAI and insisted: "A new approach is urgently needed. Such an approach must bring help and relief at once to those in need, and it must provide the foundation for policies that will ultimately eliminate the causes of poverty from our society."



But instead of GAI, governments spent the next few decades creating small, targeted programs of varying effectiveness.



If any campaign policies promoting GAI don't deal with the key challenge of implementation, they'll be dead on arrival.

[Anonymous]

i was always in favor of the concept but after reading the fraser institutes report i can see how it will never work.......too bad........any thoughts



 Guaranteed income won't work

  by Anthony Furey, QMI Agency



First posted: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 04:59 PM MST | Updated: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 05:07 P



Calls for a guaranteed annual income aren't new. Nor do they all come from the same end of the political spectrum.



Most proposals for GAI involve the government dishing out a lump sum of money to anyone who falls below a certain level. This cash top up is held by some to be the Holy Grail of poverty alleviation, the fix-all answer that's always just around the corner.



The federal Liberals approved a convention motion to back GAI and it may make its way into their 2015 platform.



Conservative Sen. Hugh Segal has been strongly advocating for it, joining a long line of conservative figures including Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and Richard Nixon.



It at first seems like giving away free cash, no strings attached, is anathema to conservative values.



But most versions of GAI come with a major caveat. It's not an addition to the many handouts currently available from the different levels of government. It's to replace all of them.



No more welfare. No more seniors' cash. No more baby bonuses. Just one big cheque sent out from one level of government to everyone earning less than a set income.



It certainly empowers the needy in a way that both left and right could get on board with.



However a report released Tuesday by the Fraser Institute is less enthusiastic.



The authors, Charles Lammam and Hugh MacIntyre, explain that "all three levels of government (federal, provincial, and local) which share responsibility for operating Canada's income support system would have to agree on reform, and some governments would have to abdicate their responsibility in the existing income support system to make way for a single GAI."



Abdicating responsibility? How coy those policy wonks can be!



I think what they mean to say is bureaucrats and politicians will have to give up their addiction to empire building if this is going to work.



It's hard to imagine someone like Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne agreeing to close shop on a provincial project, even if it was entirely duplicated by a new federal program.



More likely, they'd tell the feds "you test the water first" and then once the federal GAI is up and running the provinces would fail to deliver their end of the bargain.



As the report notes, "There is a risk that the bulk of the current system would be preserved, making the GAI ultimately an add-on rather than a replacement program."



The truth is that GAI is a pipedream now more than ever simply because it would require one of the most radical overhauls of government seen in modern times.



The Harper government wouldn't embrace these repeals. After all, they've won over friends by doling out niche tax credits.



The left and unions certainly wouldn't get behind this switch because there's no doubt it would mean a reduction in public sector workers. These days even when reductions through attrition are proposed – where no one is actually let go – the protests begin.



Back in 1971 a Senate committee released the well-publicized Croll report. They backed a form of GAI and insisted: "A new approach is urgently needed. Such an approach must bring help and relief at once to those in need, and it must provide the foundation for policies that will ultimately eliminate the causes of poverty from our society."



But instead of GAI, governments spent the next few decades creating small, targeted programs of varying effectiveness.



If any campaign policies promoting GAI don't deal with the key challenge of implementation, they'll be dead on arrival.

I have no opinion on it Obvious Li and I don't have time to read it now..



But, if something can strengthen the safety net and lift people out of poverty, then it is a good idea in my opinion..



I will read this after work tonight.

[Anonymous]

i was always in favor of the concept but after reading the fraser institutes report i can see how it will never work.......too bad........any thoughts



 Guaranteed income won't work

  by Anthony Furey, QMI Agency



First posted: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 04:59 PM MST | Updated: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 05:07 P



Calls for a guaranteed annual income aren't new. Nor do they all come from the same end of the political spectrum.



Most proposals for GAI involve the government dishing out a lump sum of money to anyone who falls below a certain level. This cash top up is held by some to be the Holy Grail of poverty alleviation, the fix-all answer that's always just around the corner.



The federal Liberals approved a convention motion to back GAI and it may make its way into their 2015 platform.



Conservative Sen. Hugh Segal has been strongly advocating for it, joining a long line of conservative figures including Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and Richard Nixon.



It at first seems like giving away free cash, no strings attached, is anathema to conservative values.



But most versions of GAI come with a major caveat. It's not an addition to the many handouts currently available from the different levels of government. It's to replace all of them.



No more welfare. No more seniors' cash. No more baby bonuses. Just one big cheque sent out from one level of government to everyone earning less than a set income.



It certainly empowers the needy in a way that both left and right could get on board with.



However a report released Tuesday by the Fraser Institute is less enthusiastic.



The authors, Charles Lammam and Hugh MacIntyre, explain that "all three levels of government (federal, provincial, and local) which share responsibility for operating Canada's income support system would have to agree on reform, and some governments would have to abdicate their responsibility in the existing income support system to make way for a single GAI."



Abdicating responsibility? How coy those policy wonks can be!



I think what they mean to say is bureaucrats and politicians will have to give up their addiction to empire building if this is going to work.



It's hard to imagine someone like Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne agreeing to close shop on a provincial project, even if it was entirely duplicated by a new federal program.



More likely, they'd tell the feds "you test the water first" and then once the federal GAI is up and running the provinces would fail to deliver their end of the bargain.



As the report notes, "There is a risk that the bulk of the current system would be preserved, making the GAI ultimately an add-on rather than a replacement program."



The truth is that GAI is a pipedream now more than ever simply because it would require one of the most radical overhauls of government seen in modern times.



The Harper government wouldn't embrace these repeals. After all, they've won over friends by doling out niche tax credits.



The left and unions certainly wouldn't get behind this switch because there's no doubt it would mean a reduction in public sector workers. These days even when reductions through attrition are proposed – where no one is actually let go – the protests begin.



Back in 1971 a Senate committee released the well-publicized Croll report. They backed a form of GAI and insisted: "A new approach is urgently needed. Such an approach must bring help and relief at once to those in need, and it must provide the foundation for policies that will ultimately eliminate the causes of poverty from our society."



But instead of GAI, governments spent the next few decades creating small, targeted programs of varying effectiveness.



If any campaign policies promoting GAI don't deal with the key challenge of implementation, they'll be dead on arrival.

Most advanced countries have guaranteed minimum income or GMI. But, I do not know of any country that has a basic income. The two are very different.

[Romero]

No surprise that the Fraser Institute is against it. They're against any social programs.

[Anonymous]

I hate how they hold the feet of government to the fire.

Yes, I know, but some of us do care about how efficiently and transparently our money is spent.

[Anonymous]

i was always in favor of the concept but after reading the fraser institutes report i can see how it will never work.......too bad........any thoughts.

FI is not really saying it can't work. They are saying it won't work under our political system of pandering. It is not in the interests of any political party in Canada. I still believe it can work. Singapore delivers services directly to people giving them more choice while increasing efficiency and lowering costs. It seems to work there because the political and social culture is so different from North America. The other thing of course is that as a city-state, they don't have to fight with provinces and municipalities.

[Obvious Li]

i was always in favor of the concept but after reading the fraser institutes report i can see how it will never work.......too bad........any thoughts.

FI is not really saying it can't work. They are saying it won't work under our political system of pandering. It is not in the interests of any political party in Canada. I still believe it can work. Singapore delivers services directly to people giving them more choice while increasing efficiency and lowering costs. It seems to work there because the political and social culture is so different from North America. The other thing of course is that as a city-state, they don't have to fight with provinces and municipalities.

yes i agree..i should clarify.....i am for a guaranteed income....but like you have determined it will not work in the current political climate, particularly with the division of powers and programs between the provinces and the federal govt.

[Anonymous]

i was always in favor of the concept but after reading the fraser institutes report i can see how it will never work.......too bad........any thoughts.

FI is not really saying it can't work. They are saying it won't work under our political system of pandering. It is not in the interests of any political party in Canada. I still believe it can work. Singapore delivers services directly to people giving them more choice while increasing efficiency and lowering costs. It seems to work there because the political and social culture is so different from North America. The other thing of course is that as a city-state, they don't have to fight with provinces and municipalities.

yes i agree..i should clarify.....i am for a guaranteed income....but like you have determined it will not work in the current political climate, particularly with the division of powers and programs between the provinces and the federal govt.

So, guaranteed income means that is all that government provides?

 ac_wot

What about health, pensions, education and roads among many others?



Who will pay for all of these?

[Obvious Li]

FI is not really saying it can't work. They are saying it won't work under our political system of pandering. It is not in the interests of any political party in Canada. I still believe it can work. Singapore delivers services directly to people giving them more choice while increasing efficiency and lowering costs. It seems to work there because the political and social culture is so different from North America. The other thing of course is that as a city-state, they don't have to fight with provinces and municipalities.

yes i agree..i should clarify.....i am for a guaranteed income....but like you have determined it will not work in the current political climate, particularly with the division of powers and programs between the provinces and the federal govt.

So, guaranteed income means that is all that government provides?

 ac_wot

What about health, pensions, education and roads among many others?



Who will pay for all of these?

guaranted income means that the govt. sets a minimum income every canadian should receive..say $35,0000.......all benefits like welfare, employment insurance, OAS, CPP, disability, veterens etc etc etc....would all be amalgamated into one benefit......some of these programs are administered federally and some provincially.....provincial leaders would not want to give up their ability to spread money around in targeted programs like they would have to under a single program payment system....10's if not 100's of thousands of civil servants would be out of work if all these programs were disbanded......there is lots more involved but you get the drift..it is complicated

[Anonymous]

yes i agree..i should clarify.....i am for a guaranteed income....but like you have determined it will not work in the current political climate, particularly with the division of powers and programs between the provinces and the federal govt.

So, guaranteed income means that is all that government provides?

 ac_wot

What about health, pensions, education and roads among many others?



Who will pay for all of these?

guaranted income means that the govt. sets a minimum income every canadian should receive..say $35,0000.......all benefits like welfare, employment insurance, OAS, CPP, disability, veterens etc etc etc....would all be amalgamated into one benefit......some of these programs are administered federally and some provincially.....provincial leaders would not want to give up their ability to spread money around in targeted programs like they would have to under a single program payment system....10's if not 100's of thousands of civil servants would be out of work if all these programs were disbanded......there is lots more involved but you get the drift..it is complicated

I have never heard of anything like this before Obvious Li?



Does this mean that we would receive $35,000 each year?

 ac_wot

Would that be as a married couple or each?

[Obvious Li]

So, guaranteed income means that is all that government provides?

 ac_wot

What about health, pensions, education and roads among many others?



Who will pay for all of these?

guaranted income means that the govt. sets a minimum income every canadian should receive..say $35,0000.......all benefits like welfare, employment insurance, OAS, CPP, disability, veterens etc etc etc....would all be amalgamated into one benefit......some of these programs are administered federally and some provincially.....provincial leaders would not want to give up their ability to spread money around in targeted programs like they would have to under a single program payment system....10's if not 100's of thousands of civil servants would be out of work if all these programs were disbanded......there is lots more involved but you get the drift..it is complicated

I have never heard of anything like this before Obvious Li?



Does this mean that we would receive $35,000 each year?

 ac_wot

Would that be as a married couple or each?

well hopefully everybody would still hold a job....however, the usual suspects who choose not to work would be entitled to a minimum of 35K....if you worked and made 20K the govt. would add another 15K to bring you up to the minimum.....broadly speaking.....it is an expensive program but it is the ultimate social program for any socialist country.....

[Anonymous]

well hopefully everybody would still hold a job....however, the usual suspects who choose not to work would be entitled to a minimum of 35K....if you worked and made 20K the govt. would add another 15K to bring you up to the minimum.....broadly speaking.....it is an expensive program but it is the ultimate social program for any socialist country.....

So, only people that earn less than $35, 000 as an example would be eligible?



This might encourage some people not to work wouldn't it?



It would not be many I would assume, but still some.

 ac_umm

[Anonymous]

well hopefully everybody would still hold a job....however, the usual suspects who choose not to work would be entitled to a minimum of 35K....if you worked and made 20K the govt. would add another 15K to bring you up to the minimum.....broadly speaking.....it is an expensive program but it is the ultimate social program for any socialist country.....

I still believe the idea of GAI is workable, but not here. It will never, ever happen in a large diverse country like Canada. As we stated, our levels of government would be fighting, our various public sector sector unions would be battling it and most importantly it is not in the interests of any of our political parties.



It might be doable in some tiny European jurisdiction though.

[Frost]

Guaranteed Income, we have it, it's called Welfare. Look how good it's done us, lazy good for nothings taking it for life, and them passing the life along to their kids.

The people who need it, is the people trying to make a living, and better themselves, not lazy people living off the system.

Better education is the key, better family pushing their kids some to better themselves.

[Anonymous]

Guaranteed Income, we have it, it's called Welfare. Look how good it's done us, lazy good for nothings taking it for life, and them passing the life along to their kids.

The people who need it, is the people trying to make a living, and better themselves, not lazy people living off the system.

Better education is the key, better family pushing their kids some to better themselves.

No, welfare is not universal and nothing like a guaranteed income. However, a GI could have the same negative effects that welfare produces, at least with some people anyway.