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
Chr�tien 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 Chr�tien 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
