While many have greeted Ontario’s proposed project with enthusiasm, it has also ignited considerable discussion about what, exactly, a basic income is or should be, and whether it is a good idea. What has emerged is yet more evidence that the basic income is truly a unique program, in that it is lauded and loathed by various people from all sides the political spectrum. It is fairly easy to understand the criticisms from the right wing, where it is believed that “free” money will dampen market competition, individual initiative, and traditional family structures. When Nixon studied the idea, enthusiasm and broad-based support waned as evidence seemed to indicate that a guaranteed income might affect work effort among recipients and, more controversially, lead to family dissolution, because spouses would no longer be financially dependent on their partners. At the same time, many progressive thinkers are suspicious of conservatives who claim to support a basic income. This is because when conservatives talk about improving efficiency or reducing administrative burdens, it is usually code for eliminating programs and firing public sector workers. It is difficult to see how this would make the province more prosperous or fair. Furthermore, it cannot be denied that any sort of basic income would be costly. On a national scale, a universal benefit of $1,200 per month would cost $400 billion more than the existing system of social assistance, child benefits, Employment Insurance, and Old Age Security. We would have to double our current tax rates to afford such a program. In this light, it becomes obvious that a basic income policy acceptable to fiscal conservatives would need to be fairly modest, and delivered in conjunction with drastic cuts elsewhere. Of course, it is important to note that many anti-poverty advocates have their own reservations about basic income programs. For example, it is argued that a universal basic income scheme might effectively serve as a subsidy for low- wage employers. And by removing the imperative to provide wages to as many citizens as possible, a basic income could also distract policy-makers from strategies geared toward job creation and full employment. Some see this as a good thing, because a basic income is meant
to increase individual autonomy and leisure time, or because the goal of decent employment for all is unrealistic in an economy predicated on precarious work. But it is a red flag for many in the labour community, and one of several reasons why unions have often been hesitant to lend the concept their full political and organizational weight. Elegant solution, or total quagmire?
If the problem with the poor is poverty, the fix would seem to be to give people money. But how, and how much, and who pays, and what are the trade-offs? What on the surface appears to be a simple solution to a clearly defined problem quickly gives way to a web of ethical, political, and technical questions. This is not to say that the idea should be dismissed. However, a truly progressive approach to reducing poverty and inequality in our society requires an acknowledgement of the complexity of the issue. This highlights the need for a well-designed pilot program, to yield robust empirical evidence of the impact of a basic income program in the modern context. At the same time, it is clear that we cannot unquestioningly allow governments to offer basic income programs – or basic income pilots – as evidence of their commitment to reducing or eliminating poverty. As the Ontario Federation of Labour and others have pointed out, there are steps that the provincial and federal governments could take to immediately improve the lives of those in need. For example a pilot program is certainly not required to demonstrate that current social assistance rates are insufficient. And even if a basic income policy were eventually implemented, it would not eliminate the need for a wide array of accessible, high quality public goods and services, such as health care, affordable housing, child care, and education. A report summarizing public and expert views on the concept of a basic income, as well as the technical details of a pilot program, is expected in April. However, it appears that the Ontario government is already cognizant of many of the concerns we have raised here. The Kingston Whig-Standard reports that at a recent consultation meeting, Chris Ballard, the Minister of Housing and Minister Responsible for the Poverty Reduction Strategy, told the audience that the government is looking at a suite of measures to address income security, of which a basic income would be just one. He also cautioned against the well-meaning, but ultimately misguided tendency to substitute romanticism for rational policymaking. “My heart tells me [a basic income] is a wonderful solution,” Ballard remarked. “My head says… let’s get the data and prove it.” The implementation of a basic income is potentially revolutionary development, one that could finally enable all citizens to live in comfort and dignity. But with such a significant social question, it is crucial that we take our time, and make sure we get the answer right. Adam Lemieux is Communications Specialist in the Communications department at the OECTA Provincial Office.
FEBRUARY 2017 |
@ OECTA
25
PHOTO: @ Bilanol / Shutterstock.com
Canada’s most vocal proponents of the basic income, to draft a discussion paper. Segal, who believes that a basic income is most desirable because it would do away with the demeaning intrusiveness of existing welfare programs, has proposed a randomized control trial in which several test groups would receive payments of 75 to 100 per cent of the Low-Income Measure (amounting to roughly $1300 to $1500 per month). A control group would continue to receive assistance through Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program. The study, which would be carried out in three communities, would examine the impact of a basic income on participants’ health, life choices, education outcomes, and work behaviour, as well as the community-level effects and the direct administrative costs or savings.