by Guest Contributor | Dec 8, 2016 | Opinion
Written By: Pierre Madden
It is Voltaire who quipped that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire. I am convinced that Basic Income will be implemented in the next decade. By its definition, BI is universal, individual and unconditional. However, none of these features will be a part of BI as it first materializes.
A universal demogrant is just too expensive to contemplate, except in Alaska where oil revenue is distributed to every man, woman and child. Giving the same amount to everybody only to claw it back in taxes from most, while philosophically pure, flies in the face of common sense. That is why all serious proposals are structured as a negative income tax (NIT). In fact, there are already features in the Canadian federal and provincial fiscal systems that function as NIT with regular cash transfers.
The basic unit in our society is the family. Statistics are kept by households. An individual is no more than a couple divided by the square root of two. This is in part just the common-sense recognition of the economies of scale of collective living. It is not four times as expensive to live as a family of four than to live alone, only two times (i.e.: cost of living alone times the square root of four). In Québec, two individuals sharing an apartment would each receive $623 per month for a total of $1,246. At some point, the government will consider them to be living in a “common law marriage” and cut the benefits to $965 in total (the government does not follow the square root rule). The fact that you do not sleep together or that you are siblings is not a defence. Across the board individuality would raise the problem of “the banker’s wife.” The banker is very rich but his wife who benefits from his wealth has no income of her own and would therefore qualify for any income subsidies. Of course, it has been argued forcefully that these women are often trapped in their gilded cage, unable to escape an abusive marriage, for instance.
Finally, governments are reluctant to abandon conditionality of benefits, a paternalistic remnant of the distinction between deserving and undeserving poor. A liberal democracy’s commitment to providing everyone with a quality education, for example, is not paternalism but the recognition of a basic right. This right is expanding to include people in their late twenties and early thirties as jobs for this generation disappear and those that are left require more qualifications. All non-health-related government benefits today are based on the condition of job seeking. The benefits themselves must in no way compromise the incentive to work. Part of the justification for this is economic, the fear that wages will skyrocket, profits will plummet and the economy will collapse if no one is willing to work anymore. Another part is ideological; education and work are seen as developing and preserving “human capital.” Government wisdom rather than individual freedom decides how that is defined.
While I am optimistic that Basic Income will see the light of day in my lifetime, I am prepared to accept an imperfect version and leave to future generations the task of improving it.
Author biography: Pierre Madden is a zealous dilettante based in Montreal. He has been a linguist, a chemist, a purchasing coordinator, a production planner and a lawyer. His interest in Basic Income, he says, is personal. He sure could use it now!
by Toru Yamamori | Oct 29, 2016 | News
As we have reported, at the General Assembly (GA) of BIEN held in Seoul on 9th July, BIEN clarified the definition of basic income that had been used on its formal documents unchanged for past 30 years. The GA also voted on the type of basic income BIEN supports. This is the detailed report on how decision was made.
Clarification
What BIEN had in its statues was:
[Basic Income is] ‘an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement’
What BIEN has now in its amended statues is:
[Basic Income is] “a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement”
The following clarification of that definition has been put on BIEN’s website:
That is, Basic Income has the five following characteristics:
1. Periodic: it is paid at regular intervals (for example every month), not as a one-off grant
2. Cash payment: it is paid in an appropriate medium of exchange, allowing those who receive it to decide what they spend it on. It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use.
3. Individual: it is paid on an individual basis—and not, for instance, to households
4. Universal: it is paid to all, without means test
5. Unconditional: it is paid without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness-to-work.
Also, the following resolution was passed at the GA:
A majority of members attending BIEN’s General Assembly meeting in Seoul on July 9, 2016, agreed to support a Basic Income that is stable in size and frequency and high enough to be, in combination with other social services, part of a policy strategy to eliminate material poverty and enable the social and cultural participation of every individual. We oppose the replacement of social services or entitlements, if that replacement worsens the situation of relatively disadvantaged, vulnerable, or lower-income people.
In keeping with BIEN’s charter (as an organization to “serve as a link between individuals and groups committed to, or interested in, basic income”), this motion is not binding on BIEN’s members or affiliates.
Behind the scene
A proposal to change the description of basic income in the statutes was submitted to the 2012-14 Executive Committee (EC) of BIEN, but because of time constraint the proposal was tabled in GA in Montreal 2014. Then the proposal was discussed among wider affiliates and life-members, and the modified proposal was submitted to the 2014-16 EC, by 17 life members (Lieselotte Wohlgenannt, Margit Appel, Manfred Füllsack, Adriaan Planken, Katja Kipping, Michael Opielka, Choi Gwang Eun, No-Wan Kwack, Kang Nam Hoon, Ahn Hyo Sang, Gunmin Yi, Cho Sung Hee, Popho E.S. Bark-Yi, Andrea Fumagali, Robin Ketelaars, Matthias Dilthey, Toru Yamamori) and 6 affiliates (UBI Europe, Network Grundeinkommen [Germany], Network Grundeinkommen und sozialer Zusammenhalt [Austria], Vereniging Basisinkomen [Netherlands], Basic Income Korean Network, BIN Italia). The detail of this proposal can be read at here.
Another proposal to change the description of basic income was also submitted to the 2014-16 EC, by Louise Haagh and seconded by 3 life members (Pablo Yanez, Toru Yamamori, Malcolm Torry). The detail of this proposal can be read at here.
A workshop to discuss this definition issue was chaired by Toru Yamamori who was involved in both proposals, on 8th July with the support by EC and the congress organiser. The workshop was attended by about 30 people including Philippe Van Parijs who was one of founding members, and dedicated for every voice to be heard. Some participants of the workshop (especially Karl Widerquist, David Casassas, Télémaque Masson, Adriaan Planken, Gabriele Schmidt, Olaf Michael Ostertag, Gunmin Yi, Louise Haagh, and Toru Yamamori) voluntarily worked together after the workshop, and finally agreed on a compromise proposal which was then proposed for the GA by Toru Yamamori and seconded by Gabriele Schmidt. GA unanimously approved this third proposal as minor changes to the other proposals and to replace the other two proposals. The proposal was approved by a majority after a slight modification of wording.
Reasons, Concerns, and Discussions
The regular participants of BIEN congresses have known what conception of a basic income is shared by a majority of participants, if vaguely. The readers of academic writings by some of the founders of BIEN will easily recognize some general conception of basic income which is commonly shared by them, even though they tend to disagree at some particular aspects, the ways of justification, and the way of implementation, etc.
However, BIEN’s formal documents (either online or not) have sometimes been helpless to correct misunderstandings or misuses of the term by some media, politicians, activists, opponents, etc. Especially for recent several years, as mainstream media and politics started to pay more attention to a basic income, the misunderstanding and confusion has become greater. For example, one version assumes that a basic income means total abolishment of any other social spending. Some endorsements and oppositions have been voiced based on this version as if it is the only model of basic income. Although people and groups who favor this model of basic income are welcome to join or affiliate with BIEN, the majority of BIEN members and groups prefer a more generous basic income—usually without entirely replacing other social welfare spending. Indeed individual membership in BIEN requires only interest in basic income.
This unfortunate situation made some of us in BIEN recognized a need for developing our commonly shared perception from a tacit spirit to a clear statement.
Adriaan Planken, who has been involved in raising motions at both 2014 and 2016 as a spokesperson for UBIE reflected:
When we propose a Basic Income that will make it possible for all not to be “trapped” by poverty and to develop ourselves in following our hearts then it is inevitable from my point of view to strive for a Basic Income that is high enough to provide for a decent standard of living, which meets society’s social and cultural standards in the country concerned. It should prevent material poverty and provide the opportunity to participate in society. This means that the net income should, at a minimum, be at the poverty-risk level according to EU standards, which corresponds to 60% of the so-called national median net equivalent income. So we stated it in our European Citizens Initiative in 2013 and is it in accordance with the resolutions of the European Parliament.
At the same time, BIEN’s having had a quite thin description of a basic income in its statutes and official documents without any change for 30 years is not a consequence of laziness or something similar. Rather it is a result of deliberative consideration on how it could offer a venue where people who are interested in the concept can gather the maximum possible number of people who are interested in discussing any form of basic income or related policies. There had been concerns that a thicker description could end up excluding or discouraging some basic income supporters, especially people who work on partial basic income either as an experimental proposition or as a policy recommendation. Guy Standing, one of founding members, did his effort to convey this concerns during the 2016 congress. Haagh’s mortion was in line with this spirit. She reflected:
While more clarity was preferred, we would like to remain a very broad church of plural debate—something of quite unique status and importance in today’s world. I really hope we shall not try to reduce the whole of BIEN to the definition of BI preferred in one perspective or setting.
A particular concern for Louise Haagh was to clarify that in common understanding a basic income is a permanent grant, meaning it is a right for life and thus in principle cannot be taken away, except as provisions related to any residence requirements might in effect terminate the payment if someone moved away from a relevant jurisdiction. She was concerned that the original formulation on the website did not fully set this common understanding out. However, at the workshop in Seoul the concern was expressed that stating in some jurisdictions, e.g. the French, citizens retain rights even when non-resident, and so stating life-time entitlement, even in principle, might cause confusion. The matter could not be fully clarified at the Seoul workshop or GA, and thus this dimension of the definition and description was not included in the end. Louise Haagh notes the precedent set by the UK Citizens’ Income Trust web-site, which specifies that a Citizens’ Income ‘would never be taken away’, suggesting this indicates the common understanding that a citizen’s income or BI is permanent. This aspect of the definitional debate however continues, as the Seoul workshop and subsequent compromise proposals for a definition and a motion came to concentrate on other things, including in particular the question of a BI’s level.
The workshop was originally set for aiming to reach some compromised proposal, which could converge two initial proposals on the one hand, and which could reflect some concerns against having narrower definition. However, the chair immediately recognized that it wasn’t possible to reach this initial aim truly democratically by about 30 diverse people in a limited time. So instead the workshop was dedicated for consolidating mutual trust by sharing everyone’s reasons and concerns. The point we anticipated for the strong difference of opinions, which then turned out the anticipation was real, was whether BIEN should mention the size of the BI in its definition. Some argued BIEN should stick to a ‘broad church’ approach where diverse views should be welcome, and some replied that the size does matter because reliability of amount is essential even in a ‘broad church’ thin description. Some suggested that the size should be ‘highest sustainable’ which might be higher or lower than the poverty line. Others suggested that the size of basic income should be coupled with the existence of other social services. As far as the concerns that a thicker definition involving size could discourage people who are working on a partial basic income is concerned. Some raised the question whether there is really a contradiction because a partial basic income is step on the way to a full basic income that is defined in a thicker description. Other than the size issue, the following points were raised (according to the minutes taken by James P. Mulvale):
- The definition should state that basic income is non-foreclosable – cannot be seized for non-payment of debts (inalienable) / it is paid in regular interval / its size should be regular / it is ‘inflation proof’
- Does ‘cash payment’ include electronic currency (such as bank deposits) and crypto-currency (e.g. bitcoin)?
- Does ‘universal (not means tested)’ include or rule out an income-tested negative income tax delivery mechanism?
- Who is entitled to it within the country? Only citizens? Permanent residents?
- How do we understand “basic”?
- Should the definition explicitly state that the basic income is life-long?
At the end of the workshop, the chair called participants to join a voluntary working group for making an agreeable proposal. The discussion continued in breaks, at night, and in the morning during the rest of the congress. Participants finally agreed that
- The definition in the statutes should be as concise as possible
- BIEN’s website should have further clarification of the above definition
- The size issue should not be included to the above definition, but it should be expressed in the separated resolution on what the majority of the GA endorses and opposes
- Haagh’s proposal should be used as a base document to draft the above because the structured feature of her proposal is suitable for sorting the above 1, 2, 3.
From these efforts, over a long weekend, the final proposal was crafted.
Drafted by Toru Yamamori
Caucused with Louise Haagh, Télémaque Masson, Philippe van Parijs, Adriaan Planken, Guy Standing, Karl Widerquist
Author’s note: Those finally put forward the proposal appreciate the effort of many people during the process. We do hope this clarification will be helpful for facilitating worldwide discussion and for eliminating unnecessary misunderstanding and confusion.
by Guest Contributor | Oct 24, 2016 | Opinion
The article is meant to challenge Canadians and others to consider what precisely a basic income is and what goals it can accomplish. For BIEN’s official definition of basic income, click here.
By: Reza Hajivandi
Both as a concept and policy, basic income (BI) has been around for some time, losing and re-gaining traction at different points in history. However, the vague manner in which the term is sometimes used, and the lack of effort in providing any clear demarcations, has led to its obscurity.
To give the term clarity, first the question must be asked: What is basic income? Asking the question is not intended to provide a concrete and singular definition, nor is it a good idea to do so. The purpose is clarity, which could be achieved by first, asking the question; What is basic income? And second, journeying through the process of finding answers. The journey therefore takes priority here, by helping to provide clarity.
How can we approach the question in a way that provides answers and clarity? One possibility could be researching academic articles or the worldwide web to see how basic income is defined. However, as aforementioned, if the purpose is clarity, then skipping past the ‘journey process’ and jumping straight to the finish line will not be helpful. A more in-depth approach involves asking the ‘why’ question: Why Basic Income in the first place? By asking this question we will be forcing ourselves to embark on a journey of discovery, through which we may encounter difficult questions and decisions.
Why basic income?
Immediately we can respond by suggesting that the goal is to advocate for a policy that will effectively tackle obstacles such as precarity and poverty, which are preventing people from living with freedom and dignity. Such a response, however, immediately yields a new question: Do we not already have existing social security policies with the same purpose? And don’t some of those policies already possess elements that closely resemble the idea of basic income?
First, we have a social assistance program that is offered by each province. This is known as Ontario Works (OW) in Ontario, and British Columbia Employment and Assistance (BCEA) in British Columbia. Yet these services are quite distinct from basic income in that they are neither universal nor guaranteed, but targeted, means-tested, and subject to heavy claw backs and other conditions. The rates that are provided are also insufficient in the face of rising and already staggering living costs (rent, food, and other basic needs). It is for all these reasons that social assistance tends to perpetuate existing poverty, rather than helping people escape it. In addition, targeted assistance programs are known to be shouldered by government taxes that primarily target the middle class. This squeezes both the government and a shrinking middle class for scant funding. It also leads to class divisions by creating the popular perception that the lazy poor/refugee/immigrant etc on welfare are responsible for societal and economic problems, while wealthier segments stay off the tax and social radar and continue with their unfair and extensive accumulation of wealth.
Coming closer to the idea of basic income are other existing social security measures such as Old Age Security (OAS) and Canada Child Benefit (CCB). OAS is guaranteed to recipients aged 65 years or older almost regardless of income and other conditions. This might move us a little closer to what we want: A basic income that is the opposite of existing income security programs like OW and BCEA and more like guaranteed income ones like OAS.
This is perhaps where basic income takes its own character. It has to be universal, because if it isn’t, then it’s going to closely resemble what we already have in place, and prone to falling victim to the same problems that have historically plagued the social security system. Therefore, unless we are after a simple re-branding or name change, basic income has to be radically different from (and perhaps the opposite) of existing social assistance. Even the term ‘basic income’ seems to orient itself towards something that’s universal and guaranteed, because that’s what income is, anyway – a form of earning that is guaranteed. And if something is universal it needs to be guaranteed and come with almost no conditions, otherwise it cannot really be called universal. Not to play with semantics, a responsible BI program must therefore be universal, and tax the rich in ways that sufficiently redistribute the wealth in society [1]. By doing so it will be able to effectively reduce poverty, and strengthen class solidarity and people’s position against austerity and neoliberalism.
Now that we have a clearer idea of what BI could be, we have to be mindful of a piece of the puzzle that is not quite making sense: the government, and in our case, the current provincial and federal governments. We have to ask ourselves why the government is suddenly so interested in providing people with a new form of welfare? Let’s be honest, governments are almost never excited about spending on social security and welfare services. Instead, it tends to be the case that persistent and consistent mobilization from grassroots are necessary to secure even minor social gains. Yet absent is precisely this strong push from below, while instead the government seems to have filled the vacuum by acting as both the ‘activist’ and ‘saint’[2]. This is indeed a strange development. But what’s even odder is its occurrence in an era of neoliberalism and austerity, where the pressure is to cut services and spend less, not more. The goal here is not to undermine the groups that have been courageously fighting the government to pass a good BI policy [3]. But there is no doubt that the government has played a significant leadership role in advocating for BI as well.
Perhaps then it is useful to ask what ‘BI’ means to the government. In some sense, BI can provide the government a convenient way to increase the efficiency of social security by streamlining all or most of its existing services into one. This could save the government money through reducing the resources required to administer social security programs, and even more by keeping assistance at its current (insufficient) rates. Another way a BI program could save the government dollars – one that has community groups and organizations worried – is the implementation of BI with the aim of gradually reducing funding for existing welfare services such as health, housing, and community development. Therefore, BI can be an opportunity for the government to cut back and save resources, and this makes sense in an age of austerity and accumulation by dispossession. But it is likely that if subsidized services such as housing and food banks are scrapped and replaced with BI, social security recipients are going to be worse off than they were before, or, at best, live under the same conditions as today. It is also the case that a uniform rate under a streamlined system could actually serve to increase inequality and poverty by providing the poorer recipients with a lower rate than before [4].
In this conjecture then, BI seems to be a valuable opportunity for two parties (people and government) with nearly distinct and opposing goals. Many see the grossly insufficient social assistance rates and rapidly rising living expenses as their critical juncture to push for a BI. On the other hand, the government sees this critical juncture in other terms: one in which it can continue to make good with neoliberalism by cutting, streamlining, and creating more ‘efficient’ services. To the rest of the population the government may present this as evidence that it’s listening, ‘seeing’, and coming up with the appropriate solutions, even though it is more likely that the solution is for the benefit of the government, than for those who need it most [5]. Perhaps a question that needs to be asked is who is more likely to prevail and close this critical juncture in their own terms? The push from below is certainly strengthening, but to ensure an effective universal BI, more organizing and capacity building may be necessary. The goal then should not be to abandon BI, but to realize the risks involved and work together to build and strengthen the movement.
[1] This can be done through progressive forms of taxation, and with taxes that do not affect low-income and the poor, such as varieties of luxury and large-estate taxes.
[2] Senator Art Eggleton is starting a tour to promote Basic Income across Ontario. Also see:
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sen-art-eggleton/art-eggleton-basic-income_b_9331180.html
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/17/wynne-touts-basic-income-pilot-project-to-help-poor.html
https://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2012/12/scrapping-welfare/
[3] The Kingston BI Group in Hamilton, and others.
[4] See Commentary: Universal Basic Income May Sound Attractive But, If It Occurred, Would Likelier Increase Poverty Than Reduce It by Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
[5] This is not to pit ‘government’ and ‘people’ as two antithetical forces; such a characterization would be both simplistic and inaccurate. Instead, the current conjecture and active promotion of BI from ‘above’ and weak push from ‘below’ serve to indicate that the government has a different purpose in promoting a BI model of social security, one that is at odds with the model imagined by BI advocates.
by Toru Yamamori | Oct 11, 2016 | News
As previously reported, the 2016 BIEN Congress was held in Seoul, South Korea from July 7-9. The General Assembly (GA) was held on the last day of the congress, at which several important decisions were made, including the following:
1) BIEN now a legally chartered institution
At the 2014 congress, the GA mandated the Executive Committee (EC) of BIEN to make BIEN a legal entity. To this end, the EC established a task force headed by Louise Haagh. After considering various options, the EC decided to apply in Belgium for recognition as an international non-profit association (AISBL), and the application was approved.
It was necessary to change BIEN’s statutes to comply with the requirements of AISBL organizations. The needed changes were made and approved by the GA. The AISBL charter (BIEN’s newly revised statutes) can be viewed at this link [pdf].
2) Clarification of definition of ‘basic income’
The GA passed two motions related to the definition of the term ‘basic income’.
The first was a refinement of the official definition used by BIEN.
Previously, the definition of basic income on BIEN’s website and in its charter had described a “basic income” as “an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement”. At the 2016 congress, the GA approved the following change to the description: “[a basic income is] a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement.”
Moreover, the GA approved the following elaboration of the above description:
That is, Basic Income has the five following characteristics:
- Periodic: it is paid at regular intervals (for example every month), not as a one-off grant.
- Cash payment: it is paid in an appropriate medium of exchange, allowing those who receive it to decide what they spend it on. It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use.
- Individual: it is paid on an individual basis—and not, for instance, to households.
- Universal: it is paid to all, without means test.
- Unconditional: it is paid without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness-to-work.
This amendment, then, adds two additional characteristics (periodic and in cash) to the three that had been in BIEN’s official definition of basic income since the network’s founding in 1986. Some participants in the GA meeting viewed the amendment as a clarification of the definition rather than a change to it, because it merely makes explicit two characteristics that have long been assumed by most of BIEN’s membership.
3) Resolution on the type of basic income to be supported
In addition to the above clarification, the GA passed the following resolution:
A majority of members attending BIEN’s General Assembly meeting in Seoul on July 9, 2016, agreed to support a Basic Income that is stable in size and frequency and high enough to be, in combination with other social services, part of a policy strategy to eliminate material poverty and enable the social and cultural participation of every individual. We oppose the replacement of social services or entitlements, if that replacement worsens the situation of relatively disadvantaged, vulnerable, or lower-income people.
In keeping with BIEN’s charter (as an organization to “serve as a link between individuals and groups committed to, or interested in, basic income”), this motion is not binding on BIEN’s members or affiliates.
Prior to the decisions about the description of UBI and the type BIEN supports, there was a workshop and dedicated group work during the congress. The overview of discussions, concerns and reasons will be published here at Basic Income News shortly.
4) Portugal 2017 and Finland 2018: BIEN moves from biennial to annual Congresses
Since its founding in 1986, BIEN has held its Congresses once every two years. However, given the current momentum of the UBI movement–in conjunction with recent competing wishes to host the Congress (there were three candidates for the 16th Congress, and two candidates this time)–the EC proposed that BIEN commit to having yearly congresses . The two affiliates applying to host the next Congress, Portugal and Finland, agreed to put forward proposals for one Congress in 2017 and another in 2018, respectively.
Some people at the GA were skeptical about yearly Congresses, and others noted that BIEN does not need to change its statutes to have yearly Congress; it just needs to approve Congress proposals. On that basis, although the motion to commit to yearly Congresses was defeated, the proposal by Portugal and Finland to host Congress next year and the year after were approved.
The 17th BIEN Congress will be held in Lisbon, Portugal September 25-27, 2017, and the 18th BIEN Congress will be held in Finland 2018. The call for participation for 17th congress in Lisbon has already been released. The exact dates and the details of 18th Congress in Finland haven’t been decided yet. The dates will be published in Basic Income News when they are decided.
5) New affiliates: India, NZ, Quebec, Scotland, Taiwan, and China
At the GA, 6 new national or regional affiliates were approved. They are: India Network for Basic Income (India), Basic Income New Zealand Incorporated (New Zealand), Revenue de base Quebec (Quebec), Citizen’s Basic Income Network Scotland (Scotland), Global Basic Income Social Welfare Promotion Association in Taiwan (Taiwan), BIEN China (China).
6) Clarification and a plan for actualization of the vision of BIEN
BIEN’s co-chairs have drafted a clear vision for the organization, which they published prior to the congress. The vision was shared and discussed at a special workshop during the congress. In order to actualize this vision, it was proposed to increase the size of the EC from 9 to 11 members. The GA approved this proposal.
Names, roles, and affiliations of the new EC members can be found on the About BIEN page.
The detailed minutes of the GA can be found here [pdf]. The GA is open to all life members of BIEN, and is held at each congress.
BIEN invites everyone to join the next congress.
[Reviewed by Kate McFarland and Karl Widerquist]
by Kate McFarland | Aug 16, 2016 | News
A new opinion poll by Canada’s Angus Reid Institute finds a majority of respondents in favor of guaranteed minimum income. However, a majority also believe that the policy is unaffordable and would not support an increase in taxes to fund it.
The Angus Reid Institute (ARI) conducted a poll of Canadians’ beliefs and attitudes about guaranteed annual income. The sample consisted of 1516 randomly-selected members of the Angus Reid Forum, a Canada-wide market research community. Individuals can sign up to join the Angus Reid Forum online, after which they are occasionally sent surveys on a wide array of topics.
The questionnaire asked respondents about guaranteed income, defined as follows:
Those who made less than the threshold through employment earnings would be paid the difference by the federal government, while those who made more than the threshold would receive no additional funding. This payment would typically replace most or all other forms of government assistance, such as welfare and employment insurance.
ARI asked respondents about their support for the policy at three different threshold levels (the sample was divided into thirds, each asked about a different value): $10,000, $20,000, and $30,000.
It was found that 57%, 65% and 67% of respondents supported the guaranteed minimum income at the three respective levels (that is, there was higher support for the more generous guaranteed incomes).
Survey respondents were also asked about their agreement or disagreement with the following statements:
- “A guaranteed income program would give Canadians greater economic freedom.” (66% agreed)
- “A guaranteed income program would be too expensive for Canada’s government to afford.” (59% agreed)
- “I would be willing to pay more in taxes in order to support some kind of guaranteed income.” (34% agreed)
- “Guaranteed income programs discourage people from working.” (63% agreed)
In addition to asking about guaranteed minimum income specifically, the poll inquired about some of the factors that have been cited to justify the need for such a policy. In particular, subjects were asked whether they believed that elimination of jobs due to new technologies is a serious concern (63% said they did) and whether they consider Canada’s current programs for low-income assistance to be effective (46% said that these programs were either “very” or “moderately” ineffective, compared to 36% judging them very or moderately effective).
It seems that, in general, members of Canada’s Angus Reid Forum support a guaranteed income, believe that it would enhance economic freedom, and are concerned about technological unemployment and inadequacies in the current Canadian welfare system. However, they show hesitation when it comes to paying for a guaranteed income: most doubt that Canada is currently able to afford it, and most are unwilling to pay more in taxes in order to provide more funds. To learn more about Canada’s taxation – look here.
The ARI has released comprehensive tables showing the breakdown of responses according to province, gender, age, education level, and household income.
It is worth mentioning that the “guaranteed income” described in the ARI questionnaire differs from a “basic income” as usually described. Notably, under a basic income, the same amount of payment is guaranteed to all, with no means test (although, most likely, higher levels of taxation would entail that individuals above a certain “threshold” would be net contributors rather than beneficiaries).
Plausibly, a different definition would affect survey results. The lack of means-testing has often been cited as a reason to predict that a basic income would not disincentivize work (in contrast to means-tested welfare programs). Thus, perhaps, people might be somewhat less inclined to think that a UBI would discourage work. On the other hand, opponents often emphasize the universality of basic income as a reason to believe that the policy would be prohibitively expensive; thus, UBI might seem (even) less affordable than a guaranteed income as described in this survey. Of course, until another poll is actually conducted, this all remains speculative.
Policies such as guaranteed minimum income and universal basic income are presently under serious discussion in Canada, with the provincial government of Ontario planning a pilot project.
REFERENCE
Shachi Kurl, “Basic Income? Basic unaffordable, say most Canadians”, Angus Reid Institute; August 11, 2016.
Andrew Russell, “Canadians support guaranteed income, but don’t want to pay for, think it will make us lazy: poll”, Global News; August 12, 2016.
Photo CC BY 2.0 Just a Prairie Boy.
Article reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan.
This basic income news made possible in part by Kate’s supporters on Patreon.
