Let’s explore the concept of basic income: Please let me know what you think
Over the next few weeks I will explore the concept of “Basic Income”. I would be most grateful if you would share your comments, suggestions and concerns with me about this topic as we unpack what it all means in a series of upcoming posts. In this first post we simply provide a backgrounder.
1. What is “Basic Income”?
A basic income is a regular payment that the Government makes to individuals or families in its jurisdiction, which is not contingent on recipients fulfilling specific criteria (e.g. proving that they are active job seekers).
Basic income comes in two basic forms: means-tested and universal. In its means-tested form, a basic income is paid only to those whose income from other sources falls below a predetermined threshold, but is not contingent on recipients’ willingness to work. It is often referred to as “guaranteed minimum income”. In its universal form, a basic income is paid to all, irrespective of income from other sources. The unconditional basic income is often referred to as “universal basic income” or a “citizen’s’ wage”.
The idea of a basic income has become more popular recently, and has garnered support from across the political spectrum. In Canada, Ontario is planning a pilot next year, and Quebec, Alberta, and PEI have also raised the possibility of running pilots in the near future. Internationally, Finland and the Netherlands are both staging large-scale pilots in 2017.
2. Background
a. Poverty and Inequality in BC
The levels of poverty and inequality in BC are high relative to the national average. BC has higher than average rates of poverty, with poverty rates up to 16% and child poverty rates up to 20%, depending on the poverty measure used. BC also has one of the highest levels of inequality in Canada, estimated to be second only to Alberta.
For those needing support, our current system of social programs has a number of shortcomings. The siloed approach, with a myriad of different programs with specific eligibility criteria, allows people to slip through the cracks in the system and leaves many unsure which benefits they are eligible for. It also has a substantial administrative cost. There is significant stigma in collecting welfare today, and many argue that the invasiveness of the current approach, with its stringent conditionality and reporting requirements, strips recipients of privacy and dignity. Additionally, the current system may provide a disincentive for many to join the workforce, due to how quickly the benefits are reduced as any income is earned.
b. A Shifting Economy
Unprecedented technological advance, of rapidly increasing pace, is set to have a significantly disruptive effect on our economy. To now, we have seen deindustrialization and the closure of industries, together with a boom and bust economy in British Columbia that almost defines much of provincial economic history. With increasing automation, forecasts suggest the potential for the rapid elimination of jobs across a wide range of sectors. Automated voice recognition software is already replacing many call centre workers, car assembly plants use more robots than people, and driverless cars and trucks are already significantly impacting the taxi and trucking industries. The effects of automation are predicted to be most strongly felt in moderate and low-paying jobs: Barack Obama’s 2016 economic report predicted that jobs paying less than USD$20/hour face an 83% likelihood of being automated, while jobs paying between $20 and $40/hour face a 33% chance. In the UK, one third of retail jobs are forecasted to be replaced by 2025. The effects of automation are predicted to spread to higher paying professional sectors as well, particularly the medical and legal professions. Technological advance has been attributed as a cause of increasing inequality by a number of economists because of automation’s effects on jobs and technology’s role in further concentrating the accumulation of wealth in the hands of top earners.
We are also heading toward what is commonly termed the ‘gig’ economy. We are shifting away from the 20th century model of permanent full-time work with benefits toward precarious contract-based work, which is spreading at an increasing rate to workers at all levels of education, trade, skill and profession. Contract-based employment means employers, with an expanding labour pool, can negotiate pay, usually with few or no benefits, outside of union negotiated packages. Examples today include Uber drivers, health care assistants, and sessional lecturers at postsecondary institutions.
3. Potential Effects of a Basic Income: Opportunities and Challenges
Perhaps the most transformational promise of a basic income is its potential to raise recipients out of poverty. Living in poverty takes a significant toll, and the elevated levels of stress that it brings are associated with higher levels of alcohol and drug abuse, domestic abuse, and mental health problems. Those living in poverty are more likely to have inadequate nutrition, use tobacco, be overweight or obese, and be physically inactive. The adverse effects of growing up in poverty on a child’s ability to be successful in school and integrate into the workforce contribute to generational poverty.
The moral case for tackling poverty is self-evident: doing so would have a life-changing effect on the lives of those currently living in poverty and dealing with the problems it brings on a daily basis. The financial cost is also significant: the adverse outcomes of poverty lead to increased use of public health care, more hospitalizations, and lost economic activity, among other effects.
A pilot project undertaken in Manitoba in the 1970s suggests that a basic income policy can have significant impacts on the healthcare system: providing a basic income to residents of Dauphin, Manitoba for 3 years reduced hospital visits by 8.5%. The decrease in hospital visits was attributed to lower levels of stress in low income families, which resulted in lower rates of alcohol and drug use, lower levels of domestic abuse, fewer car accidents, and lower levels of hospitalization for mental health issues.
A basic income could also provide a means to respond proactively to the changes we are just beginning to see in the labour market. As the effects of automation are realized, providing a basic income would enable those affected to retrain for new professions, attend or return to University or College, take entrepreneurial risks, contribute to their communities or other causes through volunteering and civic engagement, and invest time in their families.
A challenge in considering a basic income scheme is predicting its effects on the labour market, specifically the extent to which it might provide a disincentive to work comparable to or stronger than the disincentive often associated with our current social assistance programs. The Dauphin, Manitoba pilot study provides some initial information on this question: it was found that the negative effect on people’s willingness to work was minimal for the general population, but more pronounced for mothers with young children, and teenagers aged 16-18 who completed high school instead of leaving to join the workforce.
A recent report by the Vancouver Foundation advocates paying all youth ages 18-24 transitioning out of foster care a “basic support fund” of between $15,000-$20,000. Doing so, they estimate, would cost $57 million per year, whereas the cost of the status quo is between $222-$268 million per year, due to the range of adverse outcomes that affect youth in transition, including intergenerational poverty, criminal activity, substance abuse, lost educational opportunities, and homelessness. Thus they estimate that establishing a basic support fund for youth in transition would result in savings to the Provincial Government of $165-$201 million per year.
The cost of a basic income program is difficult to predict, and estimates range widely according to assumptions made about the characteristics of the program and its social and economic effects. In costing a basic income it is important not to ignore the cost of the status quo: the direct costs of unemployment, poverty, and homelessness as well as the costs of managing the adverse effects. Nonetheless, the cost of a basic income program to BC is potentially significant, and costs associated with different implementation options must be fully worked out and tested.
4. So what are your thoughts?
While I recognize that I’ve only provided cursory information to initiate this conversation, I would like to hear your thoughts on the idea of a basic income. Do you think a basic income policy holds promise as a potential way forward in BC, allowing us to tackle poverty effectively and prepare for a future in which the nature of work is vastly different from what we have known in the past? What are your concerns about the policy? How would you like to see it implemented? Thank you in advance for your comments.
Latest Posts
February 25, 2024
Recent Comments
- on Global warming: An intergenerational conversation and plea for action
- on When ideology trumps evidence: The decision to cancel the school liaison officer program in School District 61
- on Earth: The final frontier and the failure of fear-based climate messaging
- on Earth: The final frontier and the failure of fear-based climate messaging
- on Earth: The final frontier and the failure of fear-based climate messaging
73 Comments
The welfare rates have not been brought up to the standard of living and this would be a good idea for people and families in need .
Yes. I wrote a grad school paper arguing for this over 40 years ago. So it’s nice to see politicians in Canada finally taking it seriously. In the meantime, BC could expand on the federal Working Income Tax tax credit.
I think retailers would soon start upping prices and nothing much would change. There also should be better oversight on giving out our tax money. You would have to have solid proof of no other income to qualify. And make sure you take care of children first and foremost!
I think a universal basic income would be good. I understand that means that EVERYONE regardless of income gets it which means, to me, that people would want to rise above it at some point, hopefully earlier than later, and earn more than the 15-20K that would be provided free of any scrutiny. So even if we are taxed, everyone benefits, not just people who are poverty stricken…I was on welfare as a single mom years ago, and it was only through going back to school to get my degree that I was able to rise out of it. Perhaps getting rid of post secondary costs altogether would help too.
love overdue ! when campaign promises are to ‘help the middle class’ I grit my teeth !! We need to help those in poverty move INTO the middle class !!
We also need at least $15/hour minimum wage AND affordable housing to achieve this ! At present, social services provides $375 a month for shelter…just where can you rent for this amount?!!!
Time to stop subsidizing industry and to start working for the citizenry !
I’m in complete agreement than in a technologically advanced society some means for citizen to obtain the goods necessary for survival is necessary if it is not provided to them directly. Since the rental model and the grocery store seem to be the way most shelter and nourishment is provided, a means for paying for these things must be provided. And it should be there for good – benefits that can be ended on whim are nerve-wracking. I’d agree most strongly with the note regarding minimum wage – it should be $20/hr at least…and with the statement that single mothers must be supported as strongly as possible, with nourishment and early childhood education a priority. It amazes me that in the 60’s it was projected that by 2000, probably only 10% of the people would be employed…the other 90% were confronted with what to do with all that paid leisure, because robotics would have marginalized the need for so many human hands…and that appears to have been completely forgotten. The immediate fears destroy long-range vision. My own experience has been that until the bottom level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is looked after, it’s hard to raise one’s head into the joy of this world and the responsibility of being a member of a larger society, let alone become one’s better self. But the most important ones to reach and provide for are the young children…daycare, food programs, etc….and a mincome might go some way toward providing that early childhood security.
I am 100% in favor of basic income. With that said there are many details that need to be sorted out. My perspective is that of a person in very precarious employment as a sessional lecturer. As of right now I have no idea whether I will have any work after December. The sessional rate is barely enough for basics (we don’t even come close to what tenure and tenure track faculty are paid). “Saving for the future” is not really an option when you’re struggling to pay the hydro and the rent. The stress and constant worry is not good for mental health or productivity; this in turn is not good for my relationships with friends, family, or co-workers. Basic income, by removing that constant stress, would facilitate being a more effective teacher, a better parent, and a more productive member of society. There are many in the same or at least same type of situation.
I have been concerned about automation since ever. Part of my job teaching was to train on CNC machinery. It is good for it’s speed and accuracy but it also puts people out of work. We see the same thing in forestry today where machines cut down trees way faster than individuals. We need to find a way to balance the use of new technology with the need for our citizens to be able to live a decent life. Food banks and child poverty are not shrinking and we need to address these problems.
First one needs to eat. Then one needs to be clothed. One needs shelter. Then one can sleep. Then one can awake with renewed energy. It is a very basic human right for everyone of us. Then one can look around and see where one can give. What possibilities one could live and be rewarded for. I know that nurturing is the way of giving to each and everyone of us.It is a very positive start to begin with a safe net of income to begin the safe structure in a very troubled world. All of us deep down inside want to walk happily into life and be strong and be able to do something that contributes to the whole in some small way.But if we can just make sure everyone of us is not in such stress the the flowering of society may work.All the cultures of the world have been uprooted . It is time to embrace each and every one of us all in this global soup and recognize what is positive and then go forward together.
This should be implemented as soon as possible. It really is a no brainer!!
Work is being automated at an exponentially increasing rate, the world cannot sustain ‘growth’ economics for much longer and the carbon bubble is bursting as we sit.
For those living on disability support the restrictions attached are often very difficult to navigate and still feel like one has a meaningful life.
Let’s get on with this
rather than go this route, why not more subsidized housing for people on the lower end? in bc we have a higher poverty rate due mainly to the higher cost of rental housing, and housing in general. single people on welfare get 375 for shelter, that has to include utilities. if we had more housing at those lower rates, we would had far fewer homeless, and far less poverty
In response to the idea of giving youth, just out of the foster care program, $15,000 to $20,000 I say- not a well thought out plan. Recently in the news their are reports of large numbers of children in B.C.’s foster care programs being sexually abused by their foster parents… giving a child, because that’s what they are at 18, $15,000 upon leaving an abusive situation is a recipe for disaster. Likely they will find another abuser or abuse themselves through drug use, etc.. And after spending much of their life likely in crisis/survival mode, they will not have acquired the skills to be able to support themselves on that $15,000, with rare exceptions of course. They would likely need professional help and years of healing after being in the foster care programs. Instead of saving 57 million dollars a year our government will spend that amount on top of what we already spend to help children released out of care. Giving money to humans does not solve their problems-it often increases them. Accepting people, welcoming them into our communities, educating the masses through individualistic methods, offering help when needed for a myriad of social ills and making the minimum hourly wage $20, right now could be a start. Raising that minimum wage as inflation rises is one of the answers.
I too was quite open to this concept till youth were mentioned. Although Id be very much into giving late bloomers without issues enough time to become age appropriate, I think youth need help in adapting a contributing rather than a false sense of entitlement. So administration would still be required to screen and place youth depending on the circumstances. Other youth would’ve their entitlement dolled out where it is sure to supply the youths actual basic needs and not drugs. Others will be ready to take that task on themselves.
I fear being taxed even more. I am doing okay with my own business, but it’s very disincentive when 45 cents of every dollar I make goes to taxes. Why should I work hard if I can kick back and let others take care of me?
Agree
Agree up to a point. A UBI must find the sweet spot where basic needs are covered, but the incentive to earn a better life remains. A premium UBI would not only destroy the incentive of those at the bottom, but the cost would destroy incentives for those at the top. Not only would they be paying more in taxes, but their labor costs would go through the roof as pay rates to entice people off their couches would be forced up. As producers disappear, prices will skyrocket and the premium UBI will no longer provide a premium lifestyle.
I also think a universal basic income would be excellent. Having been on welfare (for as little time as possible), I can affirm that privacy and dignity are destroyed, and it is very discouraging. Having gone off welfare and lived off the child tax benefit and food bank, I can affirm that that is also very difficult. Having searched for work and pursued re-education as a single mom with young children, I can affirm that child care is very difficult. I finally got a great job, but you have to start casual and the first year is very challenging — even though the hourly rate is great, you may only get 8 hrs per week, and that’s really hard to live off. Having a guaranteed basic income would not have made me less motivated, but it might have lowered my stress levels to the point that I didn’t get cancer and need a very expensive surgery. I live in a low income area where we often have neighbourhood homeless, and it might be well to offer a system where a portion of the basic income can be paid to the landlord. We might need a fingerprint system for people who can’t obtain or retain ID, so they can’t double dip (as sometimes happens where I work). As someone else pointed out, it shouldn’t come from the people who are just barely making ends meet. But a well thought out program could be a real boost for society. As for those stories of people who ‘worked hard and didn’t take hand-outs’ when they were young — the world is a very different place now, and hard work does not get you nearly as far as it did then.
A very good idea, we should have had it years ago!
I can’t think of anything that would be a smarter public policy than a guaranteed annual income. It would help people and the economy beyond measure. I sure hope this idea catches fire soon.
A short answer to an expansive question; count me in the Yes! group. And as others have said, Thank you for bringing this up for discussion. This is long overdue.
There have been promises to end poverty for years but as far as I know, not a thing has been done to actually address the situation. this would be a step in the right direction.
And as for the lack of jobs, how about putting people to work building homes for the homeless or affordable homes for low income? How about “building” communities that include on site health care, child care and educational facilities for the “at risk” segment of our population? That in itself should put 100’s of people to work across the province.
As many of the previous comments stated (far more eloquently than I can) we can create a better community (read province ) by helping people to help themselves. Basic income would start the ball rolling and this is where it can root & grow, with the people who need it most. Thanks for allowing us a voice.
I think it’s a great idea I suppose if you add up all the administration costs and the quagmire of payments the government already pays out and consolidate that all into one streamlined payout it would cut colossal amounts of administration bloat. Think about it E.I., CPP, OAG, disability, welfare,veterans pensions, WCB, on and on it goes. Jobs are going to be obsolete in the future anyways. In the 1800’s we had the Industrial Revolution in this millennium we are going to have the Robotization Revolution don’t kid yourself it going to b a very big disruptive technology not only for the blue collar workers but for the white collar workers too.So instead of people growing to dispise the Robots I think they would be more accepting of it if it would lift everyones life up make life easier not just the capitalists. Create more time for people to get creative not only in an artsy sort of way but in an entrepreneurial way as well!
I agree with the other commenters that a basic income would be beneficial to currently marginalized groups (single mothers etc.), would prove to be more dignified and compassionate, likely save money overall, and ultimately benefit society as a whole. Specifically and in the short term, I’m confident it would lead to a cultural renaissance as artists and others in the creative class are suddenly given an opportunity to pursue their passions while having to compromise less for economic reasons (I personally know many incredibly talented artists and musicians that must sacrifice their time and psychological well being working as bartenders, restaurant servers, baristas, etc. in order to “make a living”). I believe this will be very important moving forward as the future is hungry for content in the form of cultural capital.
Looking at the larger picture, I think this is a crucial first step in transitioning away from our society’s current primary goal of “increasing economic growth through production and consumption” and towards a new goal of “realizing human potential in order to create a better world”. In my opinion, we must make this paradigm shift if we are to face existential threats such as climate change, artificial super intelligence, and global terrorism (both insurgent and state sponsored); that we may avoid extinction or dystopia.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Absolutely against the idea of guaranteed income.
I think not. Let’s find some type of work for these people. People that take money for doing nothing lose their self respect and self worth. It does not help them. Back when I was 20, my husband was attending college and we had no money. We took the bus and ate hot dogs and peanut butter sandwiches. We were eligible for food stamps but would not take them. Hand outs were not part of our upbringing or thoughts. In the grocery store one day, with my peanut butter in hand, the person ahead of me was buying filet mignon and lobster on food stamps. I was disgusted and to this day have never forgotten it. I at least had my self respect and pride and knew one day I would have a car and food on the table. It made me a better person to suffer through those days. It made me work harder to achieve the things I wanted. In my opinion welfare breeds welfare and instead of hand outs we need to give these people job training and hope for a good future.
it all sounds really good doesn’t it- but would they not get the same affect by increasing the rates instead of replacing the entire system – there is a demographic of people here who live on about 22,000.00/year who wouldn’t qualify for this..but they would also be taxed a lot heavier in order to fund this through taxes resulting in even less money for essentials which goes directly against what this program is supposed to do . These people work hard for their paltry 22,000.00/year…to take away from them to give to those who do not work is a slap in the face- if youre going to do this , it should include everyone who makes under 48,000.00 / year- other wise youre stealing from the poor AGAIN!
I believe the effects of a Basic income on our society would be transformative. It would provide a sense that we are all a part of a society. Not just a commodity to be exploited (or disregarded) as it is now. If implemented with this spirit; – that we are all worthy, and count for something, – we are likely to find that vandalism, petty theft, and other forms of delinquency will drop drastically. For the penny counters, the payback would be in savings from these forms of antisocial behavior. It would be particularly helpful for families in reducing financial stress and allowing children to grow up feeling valued. That sense of being valued is critical, especially now as the need for fluidity in the labour force requires a lifetime of retraining, mobility, and a broad, international outlook on how to apply skills to survive.
Absolutely against the concept of guaranteed income.
The universal basic income concept sounds incredible. It would reduce the bureaucracy and perceived need for fraud detection. In my humble opinion the costs of administering services and resources appear to be greater than the actual services provided.
Basic Income is essentially the same as the dividend side of carbon fee-and-dividend, a method to control global warming supported by climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, Citizens Climate Lobby and others.
Under carbon fee-and-dividend, a fee would be charged on all fossil fuels, similar to a carbon tax. Unlike a tax, however, the money collected would not go into general government revenue but would be distributed to everyone as equal and repeating dividends.
Carbon fee-and-dividend would appear to have all the benefits of Basic Income and would help solve the question of where the money to pay for Basic Income would come from.
It would have the additional benefit of helping to control the harmful effects of global warming.
Absolutely NEED to do this! And the sooner the better…
Women in poverty is a situation I know 1st hand. As well as being poor, a woman finds her self exhausted from coping. Raising healthy motivated children in this culturally-isolated situation is extremely challenging.
If a woman, children or no children, had a basic income, she could help herself and hire others to create a decent living-situation. This is especially important for older women who need to hire a handy-person for simple maintenance tasks. Suicide often looks good when an older woman can no longer cope. Ironically, older women like myself, worked their butts off, contributing much to society, by working and supporting their male partners. However, we haven’t any CPP benefits for this nonpaying work – all the land cleared, farm-produce grown, the houses built. The societal belief that the husband/partner would support his wife later in life was a myth. Poverty doesn’t mean that people were failures in life, it means that the cultural system is irresponsible and biased towards the minority of people who were fortunate to prosper financially without the burden of desertion, disability, abuse and misfortune. A basic income would be compassionate, relieve so much suffering, and give a hand up to dignity and the fulfilling of individual and supportive employment potential.
Seconding Sue Moen’s comment: “I want to be treated as a citizen not a consumer of gov’t services.”
Money is power. Giving people power so they can make informed decisions on their governance and negotiate with employers, utility suppliers, landlords, etc. in a situation that doesn’t practically amount to duress, in a way that actually lets market forces help naturally regulate and even help maintain our economy should be a no-brainer.
The only questions that remain should be implementation:
Who is going to be eligible?
How do we get the money to them?
How do we avoid giving money to ineligible people or giving money to them twice?
Is this going to be taxable income and if so how is it going to be taxed?
plus:
What social programs can be made obsolete and cut thanks to this?
The Dauphin experiment lasted three years and yet society was not ready for it and it was shelved. Are we ready now? As you laid it out, circumstances such as automation, robotics and the like will reduce work for the average person. Indeed, ‘blue-collar’ jobs in manufacturing and various low-tech labouring jobs have disappeared while corporations have outsourced to slaves and serfs in Third World Countries. (Thank you Thatcher-Reagan et al for loosening all the rules and allowing more corporate machinations).
The economic benefits are lost to many right-wingers who refuse, as they do with basic scientific information on climate change, to believe the facts about overall savings by lifting people out of poverty in this way. I was on welfare for over a year and that is a woefully inadequate amount of money to live on. I can tell you that spending full days in the computer room searching and searching along with others taught me that the vast majority of people do not want to milk the system. They want dignity and a decent wage.
As a single male I could afford the time to ‘go to work’ to find paying work. A single mother cannot afford the time or the money to pay for child care to job search and those children are innocents and should not be punished with poor nutrition and poor health even IF their parents are deadbeats.
To answer your question, it is long past due for a basic income but it is long past due for people to set aside their biases and so the stalemate continues. More leaders need to stand up and address this travesty of poverty in one of the most prosperous countries in the world. It’s costing us over $300,000 to remediate the park next to the courthouse in Victoria – more money wasted that could have gone directly to house and feed the homeless.
Thanks for pursuing this, Andrew. It strongly seems to me that a universal basic income would go a long way toward addressing the many, widening cracks appearing in our market system (precarious work, unpaid care, offshoring and automation, a costly social safety net, and on and on).
That said, there are still several unknowns, which cannot be answered ideologically but only through controlled experimentation. So let’s get on it!
The idea that a universal (national or provincial) basic income is the charitable thing to do misses the synergistic points. A universal basic command over goods, services and resources is the way to enhance the ‘quality of life’ in nearly every sense of the words so long as done within a sustainable and respectful relationship with larger context (environment and future).
Here the argument is basically a numbers game. A physically healthy population is better than a weak, sick and disabled population. A mentally well nurtured population is better than a feeble-minded, unsophisticated, unaware and unprepared population. When the pool of talent and skills is large and deep the social groups strength, wealth and resilience is great.
The advance of knowledge (technological or otherwise) is stronger in a healthy, highly skilled, intelligent and well motivated society. It was over 150 years ago that ideas took shape in Europe for public health and public education. If there is one set of factors that have allowed the continued and increasing march of that civilization it is found in the broad nurturing of our human contexts so that the pool of talent, creativity and serendipity increases. Now if we can only do something for the nurture of our physical context?
.I think a basic income of one form or another is something BC seriously has to consider. With jobs disappearing all the time to overseas markets and industries it seems to be the “norm” for not only BC but all of Canada to be brainwashed into this false belief that resource export is Canada’s way and without it we do not have a economy. I am a very firm believer what we need to do is move rapidly and strongly away from exporting raw resources and create jobs by using resources here to build the things we need and want and sell off ONLY finished products. That being said, I think a basic income would encourage and entice the entrepreneurial spirit in many or definitely some people and would help in moving things in this direction. Minimum wage is in BC what 10.85 now? I fail to understand how people , especially families can live of that with all the other problems like housing and what not (enough problems your aware of im not going to list them) and i see a need for a livable wage of at LEAST $15/hr or a basic income that makes up the difference. I also think it will prove to be a cost saving move if put into practice in combating poverty and the costs associated with it. Maybe i am wrong about basic income but what we have is not working very good.
I fully agree. Regarding the shifting economy, one only has to read Jeremy Rifkin’s “The End of Work”, for me a seminal work. A technical question: how do we deal with totally irresponsible people that simply blow their income (say Monthly) on a wild party then have nothing til next “payday”?
Also I would expect resistance form the welfare establishment.
I can see a guaranteed income as being strategic at a time where we need to rethink our economies based on growth.
A basic income is one of the keys for us to transition into a regenerative, symbiotic culture and work force that will be
connected to the region and our biosphere.
The fact is that we need to address this urgently and, time is one of the scarce resource in our current society…. everybody is scrambling for time, because time is money.
It will take time to develop and sustain post-industrial, regenerative and symbiotic strategies that will make us healthy and thriving.
A basic income would give time and a safety net for engaging in a variety of ways to develop our local economies.
It would be an asset as it will add resilience for the well being of our society.
Although not mandatory, incentives to develop and guide this process could take the form of programs that would help to guide and offer support and information.
I am thinking of a knowledge based Renaissance connected to the region in: the Arts, Education, Permaculture, Forest Gardens, Kitchen Gardens, preparing Regional Foods at home and in the neighbourhoods, Crafts, Home Based Businesses connected and integral to the region, Small Scale Quality Manufacturing and, a revolution in understanding and using in the local geography, the flora, the fauna and the assorted materials we need to recycle.
Thank you so much for raising this. Basic guaranteed income is the only way to go to change our rapacious market system. What has been labelled ‘invisible care labour’ is the connective tissue of a strong healthy culture.
I can also imagine a scenario where resource extraction workers would feel less pressure to do this work. The arts sector may also be well served by basic income.
I am not qualified to address the mechanics of implementation, but I can recommend this book:
Federici, Silvia. Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction, and Feminist Struggle. Oakland, CA; Brooklyn, NY: Common Notions/PM Press/Autonomedia, 2012.
I agree with the concept of a universal basic income to reduce poverty and inequality. I also believe it must be accompanied by a thorough overhaul of the income tax structure to simplify filing and processing as well as to make it more progressive. I’d be happy to pay more income tax to ensure equality and that all our social programs are funded sufficiently. I’m tired of being nickle and dimed through fees, hidden taxes, boutique tax credits for small numbers of taxpayers. I want to be treated as a citizen not a consumer of gov’t services.
A concept that is long over due.
I appreciate all the information.
I do love the acknowledgement
Regarding the shaming of being on welfare where your rights to privacy are over ridden.
The dismissal of needs when what is offfered is not enough to sustain a healthy life style.