Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ichy Smith who wrote (204090)	9/23/2006 12:33:22 AM
From: Ichy Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

personal.nbnet.nb.ca GAI: HERE'S A SOLUTION, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? by Rosella Melanson Quick. What radical social policy has had the support of the Liberal Party, the former Reform Party, the NDP, civil rights leader Martin Luther King, free-market economist Milton Friedman, the Canadian Council on Social Development, the Canadian Manufacturers Association, certain taxpayers and poverty groups, and even Richard Nixon when he was president? The guaranteed annual income. No, I would not have guessed it either. If such a radical idea attracts such a motley crew, two thoughts come to the cynical mind: they can't all be talking about the same thing; and, why don't we have it yet? Last week, the National Post (forever fighting to make Canada safe for investors) raised the red flag because it thought Prime Minister Chrétien was considering a guaranteed annual income to replace the myriad of other social welfare programs. Only in the National Post could you read the headline 'Ottawa confirms war on poverty' and know they mean it as a bad thing. Stealth socialism, they blared - before Chrétien denied any such move. The question is, why isn't such a move being considered? I expect government to consider all options - particular since our efforts to reduce poverty were actually increasing it. The idea of a guaranteed income evidently has many supporters. After being seriously considered in the 1960's and 1970's, and having had a strong influence on our social programs - at least as they were before they were shredded in the 1990's - the guaranteed income is having a bit of a revival. Several countries are now considering a basic income. It is touted as a way to reduce poverty, cut administrative costs and provide flexibility in an economy of low wages, non-standard jobs and ongoing re-training where employment-based insurance, pensions and training programs are no longer efficient. But as a representative of the National Anti-Poverty Organization said, "If a proposed guaranteed annual income means shuffling and redealing the same lousy cards, then no thanks." Talking about guaranteed annual income without defining it is said to be like discussing felines as pets when you mean a domestic cat and I mean a tiger. The classic definition of guaranteed annual income is an amount adequate for subsistence paid unconditionally and regularly to everyone, replacing most of the assistance programs and complex tax rules, and paid for through progressive income tax. But that is not what everyone has in mind. Some envision a negative income tax, such as our child tax benefit. To others, it is a meagre amount given as a sop for dismantling all income security programs - which is the real goal - or a way to keep society peaceful as jobs disappear. It could also take the form of a partial basic income that is supplemented depending on need, such as our Old Age Security and its Guaranteed Income Supplement. Or it can be a "resource rent" - like Alaskans receive - paid by those using public resources to extract wealth. Some propose a participation income paid to adults who are searching for a job, in training or doing unpaid work including child care. The guaranteed income attracts so varied a group of supporters because it has lost any clear meaning. What's important to discuss first is our purpose. If reduction of poverty is to be a major goal, then the specifics are critical because a guaranteed income that remains below subsistence level means supplemental programs will still be needed for some people. Universality is a significant goal in itself: just as shares are given to employees to increase their stake in the company's success, social programs increase social cohesion, the stuff that makes a country strong. Universal health and education are payments in kind, while a universal annual income would be the cash component for basic subsistence. Reducing government's control on who gets assistance is why some support it - and why some political leaders don't: selectively handing out money is what they like to do. Over-targeted programs is how we end up with employers filling out 10 forms to get $3000 in wage subsidies. Or inspectors whose job it is to determine if a friend of a welfare recipient sleeps over too often. Opponents of a guaranteed annual income say that it would encourage idleness - in the rich because they would have less money, and in the poor because they would have more money. Make up your mind. It is precisely because the current system can trap some people in dependency that a guaranteed income is being revived. No one is taxed at a higher rate than welfare recipients entering the labour force: unless they start out in a job paying a lot more than welfare they are "taxed" at over 100% in the sense that they are worse off for it. A family of four receiving $14,000 from welfare - an amount below all poverty lines - would be worse off if one of the parents took at job at $14,000 - or even thousands more - due to premiums and clawbacks. Opponents also protest that it would be helping some who are undeserving. (This mostly from those who were "born on third base and think they hit a triple"). The good fortune of inheriting wealth is "undeserved" - and tolerated. Access to the means for a dignified subsistence is deserved and should also be tolerated. I favour a program that will reduce poverty and administrative costs and give everyone a fair stake in Canada's resources. Is that a guaranteed annual income? Are you talking tabby or tiger? copyright: Rosella Melanson A version of this was first published in the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal December 2000. _____________________________ Rosella Melanson is a writer residing in Moncton. Her column, Subject to Debate, appears in the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal. She can be reached at rosellam@nbnet.nb.ca.