No No No. I live in a housing co-op. On my street there are 10 units. 6 of them are on welfare and also get the housing subsidy. I was 5 months too late to get housing subsidy. These 6 people only have to pay 450.00 for their rent. I have to pay 1400.00. I am a senior whose CPP and OAS is only 1200.00 which is 200.00 less than my rent. I have to go out and the small amount of work I can get where companies are willing to hire a senior. I have to lose my dignity and ask my son who has his family to look after for help paying my bills and I go to food bank to have food. The 6 on welfare after their rent is paid by people like me who have to work then they also receive their welfare check which is higher than my CPP & OAS. They are also allowed to earn $1000.00 without it taking affect on the welfare. One of them got a job at a daycare center after they paid for her certification to be allowed to work in the daycare. She works until her income is $1000.00 and then takes the rest of the month off. I have worked since I was 14. They have never worked and don’t intend to. They have money to buy their cigarettes’ and good meat such as steaks. The welfare people hold a street barbecue for all of us with way more hamburgers and hot dogs and about 5 different salads. The ones of us who work take home the leftovers. Only one of these 6 units belongs on welfare because she was born with a disability, can’t read or write and can only see from 1 eye. 2 of the welfare units somehow got the CERB even though they have never worked and they keep denying me because I had a car accident so am not working right now. I use a walker or cane to be able to walk. I have a disability as well as a brain injury and a clipped aneurism in my brain. Lot worse condition than 5 of the 6 units who are very capable of working but why should they when they can sit on their asses and get more money that makes their life great because they get more money than the working poor who are classed under the poverty level when we file our tax returns and doctors tell them they should not be working. Where is my free money? They should be made to work to earn their welfare that we pay for. They milk the system for as much as they can get and sit together on their porches and visit whil watching the other 4 units go to work in order for them to keep getting their free money and complain they don’t get enough money. Every one should have to go out and earn a living like the rest of us. If you bring in a basic minimum wage a lot of people will only work enough to qualify for the basic wage and be milking the system in any way they can and still get their welfare as long as they only earn the extra $1,000 they are allowed to earn. We will just give more free money to a lot of people who don’t work for it. Sorry for the long rant but where is my free money to bring me up to get as much as the welfare already gets?
By Karen Kasian on September 26, 2020
Absolutely NO!!! I work in the energy sector and I know many people that get laid off, but will not start looking for work until there unemployment is about to run out. They think of it as a paid vacation. Many of my colleagues are making $250,000 a year. They are living pay check to pay check and are way over there heads. They don’t have the slightest clue on how to managed their own money. This is money that they actually worked for and earned. Many of them are going bankrupt or will be going bankrupt because overtime was cut. I don’t think my colleagues money management skills are the exception to the general population. How is giving a large swath of the general population “free” money and expecting them to be self discipline with it a good idea? We know this as many lottery winners are broke within 5 years of winning a massive windfall that should have set them up for life. I think we have a personal responsibility crisis in our nation.
The cost for such a program is simply unsustainable. If you were to give out a $1000 a month for 15 million Canadians, the program would cost a whopping $180 billion dollars a year. That would be around 55 percent of all federal revenues for the year (based on 320 billion of revenue), which is certainly going to be less for the coming years. If we were to double our payout to $2000 per month like some other people suggested. The program would cost $360 billion a year, more than 110 percent of government revenues for a single program of 15 million users. Never mind running such things as defence, transfer payments, debt repayment, or any of the other important departments that keep our country running.
How did I come up with the 15 million number? If roughly 8 million Canadians are under the age of 18, out of a population of 37 million, that would bring us to around 29 million adult Canadians. Lets split it down the middle and say only the lower half would be entitled to such a basic income. You are sitting around 15 million Canadians. If you were slightly above the cut off threshold, you would make your circumstances worse to put yourself below the cut off mark so you could get free money. Thus I don’t think rounding my number up is a stretch.
Okay so lets give out $2000 per month to the lower 1/3 of the adult population, roughly 10 million Canadians. The cost of the program would still be a whopping $240 BILLION dollars. You would be trying to squeeze $240 billion dollars a year of wealth out of the top 20 percent (lets be honest the well off already pay most of the taxes) of the population to help the bottom 1/3. I know many of my colleagues are already paying over 80 or 90 grand a year in income tax alone (I know this because I’ve done their taxes for them). This isn’t sales tax or any other tax, it is just income tax. Maybe they should be paying 150 grand a year in income tax alone to make it more fair???
I know basic income is a popular idea, because it feels like the right thing to do. There are many reasons for poverty and thinking just giving people more money will help them is short sighted. There are mental health issues, an assortment of addictions, anti social behaviour, etc, that cause people to be on the lower rungs of society. This is a very complex problem with many factors that I don’t think anyone has a good solution to. I don’t think bankrupting our country will be of much good for anyone, including the poor. It saddens me to see such a wealthy and great country fall apart before my very eyes.
By Paul Williamson on September 25, 2020
I would consider having a basic income for individuals as long as it was provided for a service being received. Welfare with no accountability is not what helps individuals. There are many tasks that need to be done within our communities and it would not be difficult to have a registry and those that need income would come in and be given a task or tasks to be done, skilled and unskilled. This would also help with self worth, provide incentive and make individuals accountable. I understand that there are basic needs that some individuals require and they are not able to work at any level and they need to be helped, and we should. For others that are not working or being productive, to just say that “because you exist we will pay you” is no help to any individual.
By BILL Mearns on September 24, 2020
The difficulty with this proposition in is who will pay and how that will be accomplished. As the owner of a small business I can say that many businesses are stretched to the max and cannot afford even higher wages. The move to $15 an hour Minimum Wage in recent years took a heavy toll and employees were struggling with that and several other increased costs before COVID hit. As for the taxpayers bearing the brunt of this initiative, I do not see that as feasible For the medium to long term. The debt created by the COVID Pandemic is goon to be hard enough to climb out of.
By Dan Merkley on September 24, 2020
No way is this a good idea. This Liberal excuse for a government has done some stupid things with our tax money, but this one would be the dumbest, or close to it. Incidentally, Finland just wrapped up their minimum basic income. It was considered to have been a disaster. They tried it for 15 years and finally gave up. Why would it be any more successful in Canada? Let’s not do this.
By Mitzi-Lynne Morgan on September 23, 2020
The comments above are far and wide, it depends on how you read the question. Ideally basic minimum income is a great thing, if one is on assistance allowing them to work to shore up their income to the basic minimum is a good thing. Getting into a better health and living space can them provide for a better earned income. Several trials have worked in this interesting that no one has followed it up.. If its only in the taxes they get the break up to that minimum income it doesn’t help if a loss of job occurs on low income as 60% of ei is not enough if their lost job was totally required to live. Taxes are not only in federal hands, but cities and towns have their own taxes to pay so no one gets out of it all. . Its interesting what is considered welfare and what is considered a hand up.
By Clare Pludek on September 18, 2020
There will always be folks who cannot manage their money whether they have a lot of it or barely any at all. There will always be the folks who can stretch a dollar into two. Probably at least 60% of “poor” folks could learn to mange if they had enough income to get by on. The Senate was talking a few years ago about a minimum income and all the disposable dollars folks would have to boost the economy. They thought if everyone received at least $24,000 a year they would have $24,000 to spend. What the Senate neglected to consider was income tax. Here in NS, that $24,000 quickly becomes $21,293 after tax. Only a few dollars more than they would receive on minimum wage after paying CPP and EI and taxes.
By Pat Gamborg on September 18, 2020
Read about the Nordic Countries; they have a form of basic income, and it works. Those on basic income are required to do “something” even some volunteer work. I have been to Denmark many times…. I do not hear complaints from the working taxpayers about “those receiving income and doing nothing” (and I do ask my cousins). It can work… basic income creates pride in community, more “middle income”, more consumers who can shop in stores and keep businesses earning income. Nordic countries have most of their citizens happy, healthy, good income and good lifestyle.
By Anni Markmann on September 13, 2020
Until this year, my answer would have be NO. COVID continues to wreck havoc on peoples lives, especially employment opportunities. While I know people who are ‘milking the system’ I see a pile of closed businesses and people struggling. The government seems to feel the solution is to getting/keeping businesses back on track. However it works out, WE will be paying for years as we dig out of our current situation. We need to encourage employment and getting those who can work BACK to work - the sooner the better.
By Lucie Hansom on September 12, 2020
It’s interesting to see all the comments that presumes people definitively know what would happen, yet those comments seem to fly in the face of the Mincome experiment of 1974-1979 in Dauphin, MB (linked in a prior comment).
I’m torn by the concept, but if we saw similar results as the experiment, and it was done well, the result could be a net positive. If there was less drug and alcohol abuse, resulting in lower hospitalizations and health care costs, if a basic living level of income wasn’t immediately subject to income taxes, if physical and mental health were improved, if families were more stable, and more students completed school, it could be a huge boon to the country. It could also reduce bureaucracy and potentially eliminate some government departments / agencies. From that perspective, and from a perspective of compassion and empathy, I’d like to see something implemented.
On the flip side, I worked for the federal government for 13 years. So, unfortunately, I don’t see this being implemented well nor resulting in a reduction of government expenditures in other areas. That’s the unfortunate part. I’m not surprised to see nearly a 50/50 split on the poll. Admittedly, I haven’t voted because my mind isn’t made up one way or the other.
By Derek T on September 11, 2020
No basic income. Teach someone how to fish and let them catch their own food. However, for people who really need the assistance, then lets give them the assistance and all the tools they need to work and get the benefits of self-esteem from working or perhaps “governmentally recognized volunteering activities” and contribute to our wonderful country. Unless of course, life really has given you lemons. There has to be a better way to identify who really requires assistance from those who take advantage of the system. I used to be a landlord (not anymore) and have gotten discouraged by people on welfare or lower income braacket whining and complaining that anyone who works and makes more than them ‘owes’ them. At the same time, they damaged my properties, don’t pay rent, engage in expensive risky activities, work under the table in the black market and know how to screw the system all the while owning brand new cars, cellphones, TV’s.
By Nathalie on September 11, 2020
“Go get a job” this is a great country built on the hard work of those who care about the future of their families. Hand outs are not productive and would reduce living standards due to lack of incentive to actually contribute to our great country. Get a job!
By Kelly Hansen on September 11, 2020
Just one more vote buying boondoggle by the ruling Liberals. I can hear it all now. Just like with the bushels of money being shoveled out the front door of Rideau Cottage, I’m quite sure that the tone deaf Liberals would do this so Canadians wouldn’t have to pay for things. Like the idiots actually believe that the populace will never have to reckon with them spending like a bunch of drunken sailors. Sorry to any sailors who I might have slighted.
By Lyle Urbanowski on September 11, 2020
Income is not the problem. Complex Taxation is the problem.
For everyone the first $30,00 should be tax free. For everyone, each dollar above that amount should be taxed at 25%. 3/4 for the maker and 1/4 for the taker.
Siegfried Merten, MFA
By Siegfried Merten on September 10, 2020
The StatCan series “Canadian Megatrends”included aa analysis called “The fall and rise of Canada’s top income earners” that reviewed changes in the share of income by income group between 1982 and 2014. What was revealed? The bottom 50% of income earners had their share of income fall by 28% between 1982 and 2014 while the top 50% had their share grow by just under 5%. What is particularly noteworthy is the share of income earned by those at the very top. The top 1% saw their share of income rise by 53%, the top 0.1% by 90% and the top 0.01% by 133%.
Read Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century and Kurt Andersen’s EVIL GENIUSES The Unmaking of America: A Recent History for descriptions of how we got here. The middle class has been displaced by technology and enormous wealth has been flowing to a handful of multi-billionaires.
Having the bottom half of all earners lose income share while the top 1% rapidly grows its share is a trend that will not provide a foundation for a happy, peaceful, stable country. Something has to be done.
By David A Bishop on September 10, 2020
NO. Enough said.
By ALAN ROWELL on September 10, 2020
Who is paying for this? The government does not have its own money. This will diminish the tax pool forcing the remaining hardworking Canadians to foot the bill with increased taxes. I was a single mother, earning a salary of approximately 50,000. That income level was enough to not qualify for government benefits like the child tax benefit or an income tax refund. Those on welfare with child tax benefit and other government credits had more cash in their pockets at the end of the year. I would like to see every source of income taxed at dollar one and credits given to the vulnerable sectors of the population. I would like to see one school system that guarantees that every Canadian has access to the same educational opportunities whether you live in Attawapiskat or Signal Hill. Instead of funding two sets of administration, more would be available to invest in front line teaching. Same with the police force. Why is there three types of law enforcement and the associated administration. Canadians are bleeding money, now more than ever in a pandemic. We simply cannot think about a basic income at this time.
By Holly Atwood on September 09, 2020
A minimum basic income can be a disincentive to work. Canada already has a higher “normal” unemployment rate than the U.S. because of our social programs. If someone cannot work due to health; temporary layoff; etc… they obviously need a helping hand; however, I used to work as a claims assessor for Canada Employment and it amazed me how many applicants felt they had a right to “pogey” as if the government gathered the money off trees rather than being aware that their fellow citizens were footing the bill through their taxes. What Canada needs are programs that give its’ citizens an incentive to work not an incentive to sit home and watch Netflix off the back of their hard-working neighbours.
By Sharon on September 07, 2020
I have worked with people living on low incomes for over 20 years. These include single parents, newcomers to Canada, people living with disabilities, Indigenous peoples dealing with intergenerational trauma, and many others. One commenter stated: “Although their standard of living is quite low, comparatively, they are happy enough with it as long as they don’t have to work.” I’m wondering how many of those people you know personally and have had a conversation with. For the thousands of people I’ve worked with, most of them want a better life for their families, but there are many barriers to that happening. Refugees who were professionals in their home country but had to leave everything behind because their lives were in danger, need to go through a long, expensive, and onerous process to have their credentials recognised in Canada - and may need to learn English (on top of 3 or 4 languages they already speak). For generations, Indigenous populations were forced to stay on the reserves where there weren’t adequate educational resources or jobs. Or they were sent to residential schools where they were traumatised and abused. For someone in those circumstances to think that completing high school (when no one around them has done so), they need to be pretty remarkable. It often involves moving to a city and living with strangers at age 14 or 15. If they continue on to post-secondary education, they rarely go back to their home communities because of the lack of job opportunities. Those left behind don’t have the support and role models they need to pursue their own education. For both of these groups, and for other people of colour, racism is a very real obstacle to success. I raised my daughter alone and had to leave a job (that paid less than poverty wages despite post-secondary education and a supervisory role) because there was no child care available for the shifts I worked. The last thing I wanted to do was to go on welfare, but that was the only option. Fortunately, I was able to learn additional skills that enabled me to get a much better job. Not everyone is that lucky. And many people live with disabilities that may not be visible, but that don’t impact their lives any less than someone who uses a wheelchair, for example. The money that people currently receive on social assistance (at least in my province) is approximately 40 - 60% of the Low-Income Cut-Off used by statistics Canada. It takes a lot of work to be poor - dealing with multiple beaurocracies, trying to pay utilities, feed, and clothe a family on as little as $300 a month in some cases is not easy. Allowing people a basic minimum income that takes away the stress of choosing between paying the rent or feeding the kids allows people to focus on other priorities, like getting training or education so they can find work to support their families on their own. Will some people “take advantage”? Yes. Most times, though, a minimum basic income will be well worth the money spent. (If you want to see an example of a minimum basic income, here is an article about the Mincome experiment in Dauphin, Manitoba in the 1970s https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200624-canadas-forgotten-universal-basic-income-experiment.)
By Aileen Krush on September 05, 2020
There is people that can afford a living and yet they are compelled to rent a place to finance or refinance their landlord mortgage. This same landlord have originally decided to reinvest from a will or from activities while getting a loan because of a good credit at the bank, or from the former generation living in this country. There is people not having even a chance to obtain such privilege because they started wrong, didn’t get a financial education early in life or because the society have hidden this matter to them. What is the reason? Because an employer want them to work for him or her as well as renting an apartment they own as landlord? If you are concerned about someone revenue you need to have an authorization or a license to do so. it is a business. There is a matter of Health that intervene in favor of citizens of this country. If a question like this is brought to attention it is because there is Health Professionals that have Hearts of Gold. Why a small percentage of people have the Wealth of the World at hands? It is because there is people dying just trying to match the recessive function with their work, ideas and payments while not realizing or wondering about being enslaved and alienated. The method is to provide at least 3 stars living to everyone, if someone can’t work or don’t want to ... so be it, the Ancient Canadians were going to the windmill to get their flour bags and were participating to community work… There is Healthy solutions, we need to hear what each and everyone needs in details…But need to provide a standard of living over criticism and judgmental attitudes…
By Frederic Carrier on September 05, 2020
The people who advocate for this silliness have not given it any thought. I live in an area where the Government provides a minimum income to a large percentage of the population. Although their standard of living is quite low, comparatively, they are happy enough with it as long as they don’t have to work. If this were provided on a much wider basis, and with more money, as the advocates want, why would anyone be stupid enough to work, when they can get by on handouts without it, and if they did work, their earnings would be taken to pay those who will not work. If you think the economy is bad now, wait until everyone stops working and the Government has no money to waste.
By Mitzi-Lynne Morgan on September 04, 2020
Second time I’ve tried to submit this, it didn’t seem to go the first time:
I ,too, always find that the View Results button in the Knowledge Bureau polls doesn’t work, and I’d love to see the results.
By Cherry Rowlands on September 04, 2020
I , too, would love to see the results of Knowledge Bureau polls, but I always find that the View Results button doesn’t work.
With a minimum basic income, you are dependent on the government. Where is the pride of accomplishment? There is no pride in handouts. Britain proved this with the ‘dole’. When it’s easier to go with the flow rather than earning your own way in the world, business suffers from a lack of a motivated workforce. When you are dealing with the lowest common denominator, then that’s exactly what you get. It’s a race to the bottom.
Those that have a legitimate need or disability need the community support and I back this fully. The rest of us need to support ourselves as well as the government with our taxes. BUT our taxes need to be spent wisely. It’s not the government’s money - the government has no money of it’s own - the money comes from taxpayers - don’t ever forget this.
By Clint Wormsbecker on September 03, 2020
Would love to see the results. Nothing comes up.
By Doris Woodman-McMillan on September 03, 2020
If we went with the minimum basic income (MBI) we would eliminate the administration and humiliation of going through all the other social welfare programs where you first have to prove you need it and some people qualify and same don’t. Welfare workers would then focus on the other aspects of their clients well being. Everyone would be paid the MBI. It would not be taxable income. The personal exemption on income taxes would be eliminated. The tax rates might go up slightly, but the net of all that would live most fully employed Canadians where they are now, except they would now have the safety net of the MBI if something goes sideways. Marginally employed people would not have anything “taxed away” and would therefore have the incentive to go out and find work. The challenge is how the MBI applies to peoples children.
By Brian Fea on September 03, 2020
Don’t we already have a basic minimum income in place? That’s what the welfare / social assistance system is about, is it not? Bringing more programs in beyond those that were in place prior to the pandemic, I think would be moving in the wrong direction. Need to assist people to want to work, and get them out to work if they are able.
By DEBORAH J BELDEN on September 03, 2020
I disagree completely with the two previous comments,and so do the facts ,as proven anywhere it has been tried.
It is an easy way to make a dent in the enormous difference between ‘have’ and ‘have nots’ in our country and elsewhere, and the social costs associated with it. I unequivocally support it !
By Donna Wuschke on September 03, 2020
Minimum basic income should be calculated to include all non-taxable benefits - quarterly GST, monthly Trillium (in Ontario), Child Benefit, Workers Compensation, child support and spousal support etc. Having said that, if someone were on minimum Basic Income and they find work that pays more, the excess income should be clawed back at 50% - not 100% - to encourage people on support to become more gainfully employed.
By Rosalind Kemp Gleave on September 03, 2020
I agree totally! No work, no pay…
By Perry Blair on September 03, 2020
When you pay people to sit around and do nothing, they sit around and do nothing. Removing the incentive to find work and be productive is self defeating. I think there should be some sort of temporary help for people who, through no fault of their own, cannot find work but the emphasis is on the work “temporary”. If they are not actively seeking employment, they should not be compensated.
By Robert Litschel on September 03, 2020