It's happened by happenstance, not by careful long term planning. But Hugh Segal and Evelyn Forget write that the Canda Emergency Response Benefit opens the door to a Targeted Basic Income:
CERB offers Canada an opportunity to learn how to design better income supports for ordinary times. Some commentators have argued that a better approach would be to introduce a “crisis basic income” that sends an equal monthly cheque to all taxpayers, and claws back from higher-income earners part or all of the benefit when they complete their income tax. But that approach would deny necessary money to those who need a top-up to survive, as cheques would also be sent to those with no need. It’s both an expensive and insensitive solution.
We have both been on record for many years as supporting a more targeted version of a basic-income top-up, which would tie support to income (as seen with the CERB) and includes low-income working people and those traditionally dependent on provincial income assistance. Why? Because some low-income people do not complete income-tax forms – their earnings are beneath the filing threshold.
Targeting basic income would be efficient and it would enhance social cohesion:
The upfront costs of a targeted basic income are much lower than sending everyone a cheque. It’s also a more affordable plan, especially if we take into account the savings to other social programs such as EI, provincial income assistance and the additional burden that poverty places on other programs such as health care.
High-, middle- and low-income countries around the world have experimented, and continue to experiment, with basic income, and the results are surprisingly similar. There is no flight from work; almost all people who can work, do so; and those who have worked in the past, continue to work. The few who reduce their work hours are usually engaged in education and job training. Mental and physical health improves. In the Finnish experiment, while there was no discernible effect on employment, social trust was enhanced. People were more involved in their communities and more optimistic about their own prospects, and those of society.
The world has changed. And, when the pandemic cools, there's a good chance that a targeted basic income will be one of the changes left in its wake.
Image: Prospect Magazine
12 comments:
It's too bad that Ford axed the Basic Income Plan (experiment) that had been put in place by the previous Government. What a windfall of information it would have provided to those who would seek to gain points, not to mention those in need.
The problem with means-tested targeted programs is that they allow one segment of society to portray themselves as makers and the other as takers. This in turn drives hostility towards the so-called takers (i.e. "welfare queens") and feelings of superiority among "the makers." All of this facilitates the selfish Ayn Randian divide-and-conquer strategy that conservatives rely on to get elected.
While clawing back a basic income from the government may be more expensive, this cost is far outweighed by the benefit of having everyone become a taker by receiving a basic income, whether they need it or not.
Cap
I have long supported this idea, Owen. In light of the current crisis, it is incumbent that we
toss aside ideology and do what is right for society as a whole. I believe I read that Spain is now giving this concept very serious consideration.
There was already an attempt to put the infrastructure in place, zoombats. We learn things the hard way.
A basic income for everyone would be more just, Cap. But I suspect that a targeted plan would be the first step in getting there. However, I fully suspect that -- when the virus has cooled -- conservatives will try to go back to a world that no longer exists. They've been trying to do that for fifty years.
It's clear that the world has changed, Lorne. But we would be fools if we did not acknowledge that there are going to be those who refuse to see that.
Given that the Pharmaceutical Association of Canada has decided that you can now only get a prescription filled for 30 days, rather than the 90 days normally prescribed by the doctor, and with that comes their dispensing fee of (at Shopper's) $10.60 every 30 days rather than for 90 days supply. This is gouging pure and simple! and this is for maintenance type prescriptions that we take all year! As we are in our 80's, they would be fairly common such as BP, and for men, gout, urinary tract infections (prostrate problems) and sometimes 2 other maintenance scripts in order to avoid surgeries which is not recommended for seniors in their 80's.
This action by Pharma agents really does raise the need for a comprehensive Pharmacare Plan for all Canadians in order to get some control over these ever spiralling costs.
There are always those who will try to profit from a national crisis, Lulymay. Only the federal government can protect citizens from this kind of greed.
I'm not sure that government today is constituted to rise to challenges of this order, Owen. The Covid-19 hangover may make our political caste without much ambition. There are so many serious problems that need to be addressed that shuffling priorities can be risky business. Sure, we can deal with universal income but, as Lulymay writes, we also need action on universal pharmacare. How do you do this without succumbing to the 'squeaky wheel' pitfall? What do we engage? What do we ignore? Who gets to choose? A referendum? What about the equally dangerous but virtually unknown threats that loom? How do we address the vulnerability that industrial monoculture agriculture poses to our own food security? When you have potentially existential threats, you must resolve all of them or you'll solve none of them. Unfortunately we're running out of time.
We face multiple challenges, Mound. And, as a species, we're not noted for our foresight. Who knows how this will work out? I don't.
, as a species, we're not noted for our foresight.
I disagree.
The world is full of soothsayers, this one from my background..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Shipton
The problem, as I see it, is that we have allowed the rich, famous and celebrity to not just influence our better judgement but to control it.
We even worship these overstated ,humans, who are often the product of bling, advertising and self serving wish of worship on a religious scale.
Under our current modus operendi we live in an over populated world that has become so efficient that we really do not need about 70% of our population to make things work so we have created an existence of servitude to employment for not only the gig economy but for employment that only exists to be! producing nothing giving nothing.
TB
I take your point, TB. There have always bee those who see things clearly. But there are more of us who are blind -- willfully blind.
Post a Comment