Liberals are considering a guaranteed income for all Canadians
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Canadians support guaranteed income, but don't want to pay for it
Most Canadians support guaranteed incomes of either $10,000, $20,000, or $30,000 per adult. Each of these amounts was presented to one-third of survey respondents, and in each case, at least twice as many say they would support such a program as say they would oppose it
The prevailing opinion of many is now that – just as horses were rendered obsolete in the workforce by machinery at the turn of the 20th century – human workers, too, face the prospect of losing their relevance in the workplace
Most Canadians (63%) believe the concern that new technology will reduce the availability of jobs, rather than increase it, is a serious one:
Basic Income? Basically unaffordable, say most Canadians - Angus Reid Institute
Most Canadians support guaranteed incomes of either $10,000, $20,000, or $30,000 per adult. Each of these amounts was presented to one-third of survey respondents, and in each case, at least twice as many say they would support such a program as say they would oppose it
- At the same time, six-in-ten Canadians (59%) believe the guaranteed income concept would be too expensive to implement nationwide, and just one-in-three (34%) would be willing to pay more in taxes to support such a program
- Almost two-thirds of Canadians (63%) believe new technology is likely to eliminate more jobs than it creates
The prevailing opinion of many is now that – just as horses were rendered obsolete in the workforce by machinery at the turn of the 20th century – human workers, too, face the prospect of losing their relevance in the workplace
Most Canadians (63%) believe the concern that new technology will reduce the availability of jobs, rather than increase it, is a serious one:
Basic Income? Basically unaffordable, say most Canadians - Angus Reid Institute
I never realized there are so many people who believe there's a free lunch! But thinking further I guess that's why guys like Justin get elected. Anyone heard if we've reached the $30 billion deficit figure yet?
The idea of guaranteeing the individual members of a political community an income sufficient to meet basic needs independent of their participation in the labour market and what is formally defined as “work” dates back eons, with variations on the theme recurring in the long history of utopian social thought. But it was really in the 20th century, with the advent of automation and the ensuing reflections on the social impact, for good or ill, of productivity-boosting and labour-sparing technology, that an unconditional Basic Income began to be viewed as feasible, finding supporters in thinkers from Milton Friedman to Bertrand Russell to André Gorz.
The current round of pondering and polemics on Basic Income is being fuelled by two main developments in particular: first, the scope of technological unemployment seen to be looming on the horizon, as sketched out in books such as Martin Ford’s Rise of the Robots (Basic Books, 2015), essays such as Derek Thompson’s “A World Without Work” (The Atlantic, July/August 2015), research such as the 2015 Oxford University study which estimated that 47 per cent of U.S. jobs are at risk from computerization — all encapsulated in alarming (or alarmist) headlines, such as “Foxconn replaces 60,000 factory workers with robots” (BBC.com, May 25, 2016).
In face of this, defenders of Basic Income argue that as advanced technology progressively reduces the amount of human labour required to expand our productive capacity, all members of society should be entitled to receive a dividend from the social investment in technology in the form of a guaranteed income, citizens’ income, minimum liveable income — the concept goes by many names, some of which describe specific schemes associated with a particular politics, such as the negative income tax favoured by Milton Friedman and his ilk.
A second source of the revival of interest in Basic Income is mounting criticism of existing strategies and methods for combating poverty and precarity — again from across the political spectrum and motivated by very different considerations depending on the provenance. It is clear to many that poverty comes at a huge moral and economic cost. Incalculable in qualitative terms, the price tag on poverty in Canada has been estimated at some $30 billion annually, a figure cited by Liberal Senator Art Eggleton in his arguments for Basic Income.
On the Left, it’s less the principle of Basic Income that propels controversy than the practice. Much of what is potentially beneficial or potentially detrimental about it revolves around the level at which it is pegged — is the proposed income really sufficient to allow people to live in a modest but dignified way, thus offering a degree of liberation from a punishing labour market, or is it so meagre as to condemn people to permanent penury in the same way as welfare, or worse if liberals and conservatives succeed in using the introduction of a Basic Income as a pretext to dismantle public services and programs?
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/introduction-basic-questions
The current round of pondering and polemics on Basic Income is being fuelled by two main developments in particular: first, the scope of technological unemployment seen to be looming on the horizon, as sketched out in books such as Martin Ford’s Rise of the Robots (Basic Books, 2015), essays such as Derek Thompson’s “A World Without Work” (The Atlantic, July/August 2015), research such as the 2015 Oxford University study which estimated that 47 per cent of U.S. jobs are at risk from computerization — all encapsulated in alarming (or alarmist) headlines, such as “Foxconn replaces 60,000 factory workers with robots” (BBC.com, May 25, 2016).
In face of this, defenders of Basic Income argue that as advanced technology progressively reduces the amount of human labour required to expand our productive capacity, all members of society should be entitled to receive a dividend from the social investment in technology in the form of a guaranteed income, citizens’ income, minimum liveable income — the concept goes by many names, some of which describe specific schemes associated with a particular politics, such as the negative income tax favoured by Milton Friedman and his ilk.
A second source of the revival of interest in Basic Income is mounting criticism of existing strategies and methods for combating poverty and precarity — again from across the political spectrum and motivated by very different considerations depending on the provenance. It is clear to many that poverty comes at a huge moral and economic cost. Incalculable in qualitative terms, the price tag on poverty in Canada has been estimated at some $30 billion annually, a figure cited by Liberal Senator Art Eggleton in his arguments for Basic Income.
On the Left, it’s less the principle of Basic Income that propels controversy than the practice. Much of what is potentially beneficial or potentially detrimental about it revolves around the level at which it is pegged — is the proposed income really sufficient to allow people to live in a modest but dignified way, thus offering a degree of liberation from a punishing labour market, or is it so meagre as to condemn people to permanent penury in the same way as welfare, or worse if liberals and conservatives succeed in using the introduction of a Basic Income as a pretext to dismantle public services and programs?
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/introduction-basic-questions
Bad bad idea for the people who work in Canada, sweet deal for the ones who don't. I know our 2 biggest cities need more help, but seriously !! what is going on, aren't they the ones with the most jobs? Here are actual Statistic Canada Welfare number of cases (reported years are different for some provinces, but they are all within the last 5 years, and the last numbers available cease in 2014 for most):
Newfoundland, PEI, NS and NB = 80,149
Quebec = 319,601
Ontario = 566,800
Manitoba, Sask, Alberta and BC = 244,828
Yukon, NWT and Nunavut = 6,145
Newfoundland, PEI, NS and NB = 80,149
Quebec = 319,601
Ontario = 566,800
Manitoba, Sask, Alberta and BC = 244,828
Yukon, NWT and Nunavut = 6,145
Welfare is very low, because it's purpose was to be a short term deal, just enough assistance until the person found a job. No one in Canada was told that it was going to be permanent for some. Seems that this information was not conveyed clearly to some who think that it's a lifetime paycheque, plus they can top it nicely by having kids, lot's of them, which gives you a large monthly cheque, but also a large bonus around tax time.
I've always been in favour of a two tiered welfare system................Basic for those temporarily down on their luck, who are perfectly capable of working for a living, and the Gold star for those who are incapable of doing any work as attested to by 3 physicians.
A hundred thousand per year to every eighteen and over person and the economy would boom, government could tax it most of it back in six months. All of it could only be spent in Canada. Where does the start up cash come from? Kraft dinner would be fifty bucks a box a few days after the first deposits came in. No cash of course this will all be digital on the CanCard. You'll never go hungry, wink, wink
It worked in the thirtys, It'll work now. The reasons are exactly the same only digital and the food is worse. What do you want to build first bridges or artillary and halftracks? Workfare isn't a new deal.
We could use a national railway in Canada, something like them Chinese bullet trains, 2 days Halfax to Vancouver fuk AirCanada.
It worked in the thirtys, It'll work now. The reasons are exactly the same only digital and the food is worse. What do you want to build first bridges or artillary and halftracks? Workfare isn't a new deal.
We could use a national railway in Canada, something like them Chinese bullet trains, 2 days Halfax to Vancouver fuk AirCanada.
The cost of living would have to be closely regulated. The income recipient would get the raise first and pass it on to the market in anticipation of inflation.
Ya ....Wage and price control Another Trou d'eau senior idea that F ucked me up.
Retroactive to before our company contract was signed so I had to give money back to my employer.....
Young and stupid....I had voted liberal at the time... never afterwards!
Instead of an ice-creme truck a traveling massage parlor would qualify as 'work from home'. Back yard garages would be the black market 'workshops' for items not covered by warranty.