Healing Gaia

Time is Right for a Guaranteed Livable Income

A guaranteed annual income for all Canadians is an affordable and highly cost-effective way to ensure a basic quality of life for all Canadians.

By Doreen Nicoll
Published October 08, 2015

Trying to support a family while holding down several part-time jobs.

Accepting short term contracts without benefits.

Working full time but earning wages so low your annual income falls below the poverty line.

Trying to survive month to month on inadequate unemployment insurance or social assistance payments.

This is what life is like for many Canadians. Unfortunately, the numbers of financially disadvantaged Canadians continues to grow as precarious employment becomes the new normal.

Financial insecurity is at the root of many personal and societal problems. Individuals and families are liable to experience inadequate housing, greater food insecurity, poorer health, significantly greater health care costs, bouts of depression and suicidal thoughts arising from hopelessness.

While society is challenged by increasing homelessness, hunger, health care costs, demands on judicial and correctional services. Yet, the solution to situational and chronic poverty is quite simple - Canadians need a Guaranteed Livable Income (GLI).

Minimum Wage Too Low

The low income cut-off in 2011 for a single person living in a large urban center was $23,289 before taxes. For two persons it was $29,004. A family of four was $43,292. According to Statistics Canada, one in ten Canadians live in poverty. That's 3.2 million Canadians, including 634,000 children.

In Ontario, a couple where both spouses are disabled receives $1,153 a month, or $13,836 annually, to live on from the Ontario Disabilities Support Program. In Alberta a single mother of one on disability receives $1,168 per month or $14,016 annually. This amount is topped up by child tax credits and GST rebates raising their annual income to $20,521.

The father of the child may be required to make child support payments, but the province claws back support payments up to the amount equivalent to the mother's disability payments. In other words, the child most likely does not see a penny of her court-ordered child support.

At $11.25 per hour, Ontario has the highest minimum wage rate among Canadian provinces. Working full-time for 35 hours per week for 52 weeks per year at minimum wage provides an annual income of $20,475 before taxes.

Anyone earning this amount lives 12 percent below the low income cut-off. Two-income earners fare better because $40,950 is 41 percent above the cut-off. If both parents make minimum wage, a family of four has an annual income of $40,950 and lives five percent below the low income cut-off.

New Brunswick has the lowest minimum wage at $10.30. Single persons are trying to survive on 20 percent less than the low income cut-off, while a family of four is 13 percent below this floor.

At $12.50 per hour, the Northwest Territories has the highest minimum wage in the country, but even that leaves a single person 2 percent below the floor and a family of four only 5 percent above the cut-off.

Although this doesn't sound so bad, the territories are unique due to extenuating factors, like exorbitant prices for housing and food.

Fears Were Proven Wrong

Dauphin, Manitoba was home to a unique experiment from 1974 to 1979. The Mincome Pilot, or Manitoba Basic Guaranteed Annual Income Experiment, provided 1,300 families with annual incomes ranging from 3,800 to 5,800 for three years.

The provincial government under Ed Schreyer (NDP), along with the federal government under Pierre Elliot Trudeau (Liberal), funded the program. By all accounts it was a great success.

Concerns that a guaranteed income would be a disincentive to work were proven wrong. Participation in the workforce continued as usual with two exceptions: new mothers stayed out of the workforce longer to care for their children, and teenagers who would normally have quit school to help support their families stayed in school.

Other win-win situations emerged from this study. People were more likely to wait for a job that was a good fit rather than taking the first position available, which could mean being underemployed or accepting dangerous work.

Meanwhile, hospital visits declined 8.5 percent, and there were fewer work-related injuries, mental health issues, and incidents of domestic abuse. If ever a policy was a "real no-brainer," it's the GLI.

The implementation can follow different models. The Negative Income Tax (NIT) model tops up the income of those falling below a designated minimum income floor, while the Universal Basic Income (UBI) model gives every citizen a fixed, non-taxable payment above which any additional income is taxed.

Both models rely on people filing yearly income tax returns - even if they have no income. The provincial welfare system is the only program that would become redundant.

Significant Savings

Former Conservative Senator Hugh Segal has been championing the NIT model. According to Segal, if each person were given $12,000 to $15,000 per year, the annual cost would be about $30 billion or less than 10 percent of the federal budget. That is a pittance compared to the $86 billion that poverty costs Canadians annually.

Ideally, the GLI would be implemented in conjunction with a federal living wage policy to ensure full time employees earn annual incomes that fall significantly above the poverty line. In addition, every level of government should mandate that government employees, and contracted individuals, be paid a living wage.

The shift in labour markets toward precarious employment is here to stay. The GLI means an individual or family has access to adequate funds for housing and food as required.

Over four million adults and children are living with food insecurity. GLI could lower this number by 1.2 million individuals. This in turn would result in significant savings within the health care system alone.

When families have enough income to take care of their basic needs cost savings are also realized in the legal and correctional systems. According to the National Crime Prevention Centre:

Most prisoners suffer from social disadvantages. In 1998, 37 percent of inmates had an education below the grade 10 level (19 percent for other adult Canadians); 52 percent were unemployed at the time of their offence (versus 10 percent unemployment for other adult Canadians).

Dr. Andrew Pinto, a Public Health and Preventive Medicine specialist and family physician at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto, is part of a team of doctors working to improve the health and lives of people living with poverty.

He teamed up with Segal to give clinical support to the benefits of a GLI. Together Segal and Pinto want to improve the public's knowledge and understanding of GLI and show that it's a logical extension of the current health care system that will ultimately lead to significant cost savings in health care, education and the justice system.

Segal and Pinto would like to see ten pilot projects introduced across the country in time to celebrate Canada's 150 birthday in 2017. In fact, Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi, Edmonton mayor Don Iveson and several groups on Prince Edward Island are interested in hosting pilot programs.

Perfect Timing

This election is the perfect time to raise the issue of a GLI. Recipients would finally have the financial means to support themselves, and their families, in a manner that preserves their dignity.

Segal refers to GLI as, "Quantitative easing for the common person, as opposed to big banks and car companies, which provides liquidity when required."

GLI is an achievable goal that needs to be part of the discussion this election.

Be sure to ask the candidates in your riding if they support a Guaranteed Living Income that's provided universally and unconditionally to ensure every Canadian can live with the health, dignity, respect and self-determination that they deserve.

Then get out and vote for change so we can get our Canada back.

Doreen Nicoll is a feminist and a member of several community organizations working diligently to end poverty, hunger and gendered violence.

7 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By LedPencilPusher (registered) | Posted October 08, 2015 at 13:22:24

In terms of practicalities, one of the ways you could initially start implementing a guaranteed minimum income would be to make all non-refundable tax credits refundable. This would achieve something similar to the Negative Income Tax Model where individuals/families who have low incomes get money back, even if they didn't pay any taxes (effectively bumping up their income and having it be non-taxable).

With this, the credits could be adjusted provincially/nationally (because your provincial and federal tax returns are filed simultaneously), which could account for the different cost of living in different parts of Canada. This solution would require only a slight legislative change and could be implemented very quickly, without any additional administrative burden/overhead.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted October 08, 2015 at 16:12:02

A Guaranteed minimum livable income would save the country billions of dollars. There would be no need for CPP, EI, Welfare or ODSP. Insurance for STD and LTD would be cheaper because they would not be liable for the first portion of income people received. It would stop a lot of people having to claim medical disabilities to prove ODSP and CPP entitlement. It would put a lot of Government workers out of work. IF the income applied to all people, separated parents would only be liable to pay for support for the amounts above the minimum and only from the income they earn above the minimum.

This concept was first well articulated by Milton Friedman. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX58...

It would take a very brave government to implement this right wing theory into practice and there would be a lot of wailing and nashing of teeth. But in the end I think it would pay off.

Permalink | Context

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted October 25, 2015 at 08:54:28 in reply to Comment 114175

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By Math (anonymous) | Posted October 25, 2015 at 21:58:52 in reply to Comment 114374

The savings come by not having to administer any programs and the entitlement process. They are extremely expensive. I doubt the unions would like it but you would be shutting down at least two federal departments, one or two provincial departments and every municipal welfare office. Everything would be administered by CCRA.

Permalink | Context

By Douglas (registered) | Posted October 08, 2015 at 18:07:59 in reply to Comment 114175

Right-wing? It's actually very left-wing. Not the marxist/leninist type but more similiar to the free enterprise SINOs (Socialist in Name Only) countries such as Norway, etc.

This system is already in use in some countries.

France implemented a Guaranteed Minimum Income system already.

It's called Revenu minimum d'insertionn.

Permalink | Context

By Right (anonymous) | Posted October 11, 2015 at 11:01:39 in reply to Comment 114177

Right as in right of unions. You won't see any public sector unions supporting any system like this. Milton Friedman was pretty right wing.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Douglas (registered) | Posted October 08, 2015 at 18:11:06

Useful reading:

Minimum Income systems (of varying levels and kinds, not always exactly as described in this system) are already in use in several countries, mostly in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed...

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds