According to Trudeau’s government, this new program will cover nine out of ten families with children, and will be targeted to disburse more money to low-income families than to higher income ones. The increase in child benefits will be as much as 64% for some families, since they will be eligible for up to 6400 CAN$ per year per child under six years old, and up to 5400 CAN$ per child up to seventeen years old (values on average). This is comparison to an average of 3600 CAN$ per year in previous years.
The new Child Benefit program will represent about 18% of the Canadian median income, and 58% of the poverty line (as defined by the top income of those living in poverty according to Canada Without Poverty). The program is almost universal in giving out benefits to families with children, although it is designed more like a negative income tax than a universal basic income, since the benefit value gets automatically reduced with increasing income. This, according to Trudeau, will lift about 300 000 children out of poverty, in Canada.
Like previous child benefit programs, the new grant is conditional in nature – taking into account household income and the number and age of children. However, it has been enlarged in value and in population coverage, which are definitely steps towards universality and covering basic needs. In this respect, this social security policy revamp is in line with all recent developments in Canada, which has seen increasing interest and support for social policies like basic income. Trudeau’s government and Canada’s regional authorities (especially in Ontario) are consistently showing signs of eagerness to change the social security paradigm in Canada, through both enlarging and expanding conditional benefits and preparing experiments with basic income.
Santens writes extensively on the question of what motivates us to work and whether or not anybody today can work for reasons other than for survival. He outlines three choices: working for others, working for ourselves, or doing zero work. Santens argues that under the current system only the first option is possible, but that with a basic income people could finally reach option two or three.
Note: The concept of basic income discussed here does not conform to BIEN’s definition.
“Many Americans are struggling with poverty, unemployment, mental health issues, addiction, and other challenges that make it extremely difficult to get back on their feet. According to the latest data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), over 770,000 Americans reported experiencing homelessness on a single night in January 2024, marking a record high number and an 18% increase from 2023.
A guaranteed income program aims to provide reliable cash assistance to give people the stability, time, and resources they need to secure housing, food, healthcare, employment, and other basic needs. Studies, including our own, have shown that guaranteed income programs can effectively lift people out of homelessness and poverty when implemented thoughtfully. Cash assistance empowers recipients to make their own choices about what they need most. It treats them with dignity and trusts that they know best how to improve their situation.”
In chapter 5 of its annual report, Canada’s National Advisory Council on Poverty recommended that Canada implement a basic income.
Quote: “The Council proposes that the federal government should work across governments to introduce a basic income floor, indexed to the cost of living, that would provide adequate resources (above Canada’s Official Poverty Line) for people to be able to meet their basic needs, thrive and make choices with dignity.”
Photo: Armando Geneyro Note: The use of the term Basic Income in this article does not conform to BIEN’s definition.
Denver Basic Income Project (DBIP) has released the results its Year One quantitative and quantitative findings. What the research has discovered supports what DBIP always believed – that guaranteed income gives families and individuals financial tools, and a cushion to cover their most basic needs per their circumstances. DBIP’s research shows:
You can review the Year One Research Report Executive Summary for an in-depth look at the research design, cost analysis due to reductions in public service utilization, and notable findings from both the quantitative and qualitative reports. You can read the full reports on the research page of DBIP’s website.
Given that Denver annually spends over $40,000 on shelter and medical costs per person experiencing homelessness and is also dealing with the humanitarian and fiscal crisis of people arriving from the borders, cost-effective programs like this are extremely valuable. As the first and largest project of its kind studying the impact of guaranteed income on homelessness, the research and results of the Denver Basic Income Project have the potential to be replicated and scaled across the U.S. The Year One report is a monumental milestone for the Denver Basic Income Project, and we would not be here without the support of the community and our generous funders, including the City and County of Denver, The Colorado Trust, the Denver Foundation, and the Wend Collective.
