Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

Ironically (under a Universal Basic Income program) you’d have to raise taxes on workers -- it would be a wealth transfer to the privileged from the working class people – Conservative Finance critic Pierre Poilievre

 


As I mentioned yesterday, I attended a smaller gathering of Conservatives in Kamloops, which was attended by Kamloops Thompson Cariboo MP Cathy McLeod, and the Conservatives finance critic Pierre Poilievre.

During the question and answer period that followed, I asked Poilievre about the idea of instituting a Universal Basic Income (UBI), being floated by the Liberals ... and what his thoughts were on that. This was his reply:

It’s too soon – it’s difficult to say what they’re going to do. I’ll give you a bit of an overview on the universal basic income issue.

With universal income ... the basic idea is everyone would get a flat income cheque from the government, and depending on the model, that cheque would be clawed back based on your earnings.

The idea originated with a free market economist in the United States named Milton Friedman whose idea was the United States government would get rid of every single social program, and replace it with a cheque in every mailbox – a cheque that would become progressively smaller the more that you worked, so that it would only go to those who needed it.

But if you’re a working-class kid, who actually has a job, working at Subway or as a waiter, you would have your basic income clawed back, based on your earnings ~~ Pierre Poilievre

What we’re hearing now though, is the idea of not only not replacing existing program with a cheque, but stacking that cheque on top of existing programs. In other words, there would be no way to pay for it – other than to keep borrowing and printing money as the government is now doing.


I asked our parliamentary budget officer to give us the cost of a universal basic income, and I said, “Using the pilot project that the Ontario government had created for such a program, which would pay $17,400 per person – or $24,oo a couple – what would it cost the Government of Canada to provide such a program?”

He came back and said it would cost 73 billion dollars.

Now, in a normal year, that would be one quarter of the budget of the government of Canada ... twice what the government of Canada transfers to provinces for health care ... and about three times what it spends on national defense.

And of course, there’s no source of revenue from which to pay for all this free money.

Furthermore, that particular proposal that would actually, ironically, help the affluent people more than it would working class people. The biggest beneficiaries would be the small segment of students whose parents are wealthy, which would mean they wouldn’t have to work (while attending college/university). They would live in the basement of their parents’ home, wouldn’t have to have a job, and they would get the full amount.

But if you’re a working-class kid, who actually has a job, working at Subway or as a waiter, you would have your basic income clawed back, based on your earnings.

In the end -- it would be a program that would be stacked on top of
all of the existing governmental programs. The only way to pay for
that would be a monstrous tax increase ~~ Pierre Poilievre

So, ironically the kid from a wealthy family would get a lot more than the working-class kid, under this program. And, to pay for it you have to raise taxes on workers, so it would be a wealth transfer to the privileged from the working class people.

My view is this; when ever government promises you money -- without work -- in the end they will be giving you work without money, because you’re going to have to pay for it on your taxes. And when your income taxes go up, it effectively reduced your take home pay.


So, it reduces earned income and replaces it with unearned income.

I believe we need a system that rewards work, and effort, and enterprise ... rather than try the tranquilize the population with money for nothing.

 

I DID ASK A FOLLOW-UP as I wondered if the Universal Basic Income would be a supplement for existing provincial programs, such as social assistance or disability income – in other words, additional income on top of those things. This was his response:

So, the truth is we don’t know; the answer is, it could be.

You’d have to get the provinces to eliminate their income support programs, and agree to let the federal government replace those programs, with a basic income.

You’d have to find a way to convince the provinces that the only way that the federal government could ultimately pay for it would be to stop transferring as much money to the provinces.

You can’t do both. The government of Canada could not transfer money through the social transfer to pay for welfare at a provincial level, and then also send welfare cheques from Ottawa.

So, this is the complexity that comes along with the idea of universal basic income. Right now, we have something like 58 different support programs across this country. On the federal level there’s OAS, GIS, CPP, CPP Disability, EI ... and that’s just a few. Then at the provincial level you’ve got disability programs ... housing programs ... drugs plans ... etc, etc.

Again, the government of Canada would have to secure agreement from lower level governments to replace all of their programs with one single federal one.

I don’t think that’s realistic – and so in the end -- it would be a program that would be stacked on top of all of the existing governmental programs ...

... the only way to pay for that would be a monstrous tax increase.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The stats clearly demonstrate the need for professional and impartial advice at the time of purchase, renewal, and refinancing of mortgages

REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION : Canadian Mortgage Trends   Canadians need guidance with their mortgages ... t hat’s the takeaway from a national survey released this week by Rates.ca, which found half of Canadians aren’t aware of the mortgage options available to them. Not only that, but Canadians are lacking in some other basic mortgage trivia, with an astounding 9 out of 10 respondents not knowing that mortgage interest is charged semi-annually: 28% think interest is compounded monthly; 17% think it’s bi-weekly; 17% think it’s annually; 28% just have no idea. Should we be concerned? Dustan Woodhouse, President of Mortgage Architects, and a former active broker who has written multiple educational mortgage books, thinks so. “ Sounds about right. We know about what we pay attention to, i.e., The Kardashians ,” he wrote to CMT. “ The material concern in this is how easy it makes it for the government to over-regulate the industry, with c

THE SIDEWINDER -- Just quit your constant damned whining and do something positive about it

  Living in a democracy is a wonderful thing, but it comes with responsibilities such as voting and being involved. When the dust settled on Saturdays (October 24 th ) BC election, less than two thirds of the eligible voters * took the time to vote - but the loudest bitchers will probably be among the more than one third of voters who sat on their asses and complained about how all politicians are crooks, etc. How many of you constant whiners have ever done anything close to becoming involved; or do you just like sniveling to hear your own voice? Are you one the arseholes who likes to take advantage of everything our democracy has to offer, without ever contributing anything? And I don't want to listen to your crap about paying taxes, blah, blah, blah. There's more to making democracy work than simply voting and then sitting back and let others carry the ball for you. Too many people seem unwilling to get involved - and follow-up - to make sure elected po

AARON GUNN -- He is, at his core, an ideologue, meaning the facts of any particular issue don’t actually matter

Ben Isitt - City Councillor and Regional Director Victoria City Council and its resident-genius Ben Isitt is back with another dumb idea. Introducing a motion to ban the horse-drawn carriages that have coloured Victoria’s downtown streets for decades, calling them “an outdated mode of transportation”. Are you serious?   No one is actually commuting by horse and carriage. They are here for tourists and residents alike to interact with world-class animals and discover the magic and history of our provincial capital. It’s part of what gives Victoria its charm. And the truth is these horses are treated better than anywhere else in the world. They probably live better lives than many British Columbians.   And talk to anyone who works with these horses and they’ll all tell you the exact same thing: this is what the horses love to do. This is what they were bred for and trained for. This is what gives their lives purpose and meaning. But maybe we shouldn’t be su

Labels

Show more