Critics Of Basic Income Are Misrepresenting The Facts
Wil Robertson is a basic income advocate, researcher, and steering committee member for Coalition Canada Basic Income: Revenu de Base.
I would like to thank Senator Diane Bellemare for her op-ed in the Globe and Mail, titled A basic income would be an unfair, complicated and costly way to eliminate poverty.
Bellemare raised many issues and reasons why a basic income should not be considered, but her arguments and facts reflect what many economists, topic experts, advocates, and politicians have noted are either endogenous arguments or facts that have been cherry picked and taken out of context.
In her article, Senator Bellemare states that a basic income would be universal and thus come at an astronomical cost. This is simply not true. The basic income model advocated in Bill S-233 and C-223 is “income-tested,” which means only people living at or below the poverty line would receive a basic income.
Bellemare argued that B.C. and Quebec have commissioned studies of basic income that dissuaded its implementation but she neglected to note that the studies were only of provincially funded programs; the bills before parliament and the senate recommend programs funded by both federal and provincial governments.
Senator Bellemare didn’t discuss the costs of social assistance and other already existing programs, nor their structural flaws or limited impacts. As Dr. Evelyn Forget points out in her response to Bellemare, the senator manufactured questions that misrepresented basic income to everyday Canadians in a poll she commissioned.
These questions, at best, are supported by little to no evidence and, at worst, should be seen as misinformation. Two examples of misinformation are that a basic income acts as a labour disincentive and that a guaranteed livable income (GLI) means your taxes would double and deductions would disappear. Again, this is simply not true.
There is an underlying irony in Senator Bellemare’s argument that we should strengthen the existing social safety net, as opposed to introducing a basic income.
We have the evidence to show that the most effective and impactful elements of our social safety net are, in effect, like a basic income. These include the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, the Canada Child Benefit, and the Canada Workers Benefit. If we are to follow the logic of Senator Bellemare’s argument, then we should repeal the GIS, CCB, and CWB immediately because they are supposedly “costly and ineffective.”
Senator Bellemare only addressed the costs of basic income, not its beneficial impact. A GLI, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, would lift 49 percent of people currently living below the Market Basket Measurement of poverty to above it and into a life of dignity and greater health.
In a province like New Brunswick, it would lift 90.8 percent of those below the Low-Income Cut-Off above it. GLI has been proven to lower hospitalizations and doctor visits. It has also been proven to have overwhelmingly positive impacts on mental and physical health, food insecurity, children’s health, and access to medication.
Basic income can allow artists and workers in the gig economy a life of dignity and protection from the clutches of abject poverty, and recognizes the value of their contributions to society. Basic income can stimulate entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic growth while saving $20-billion annually from provincial social assistance programs, alone. Significantly, a basic income can act as a crucial economic safety mechanism to help those fleeing intimate partner violence, allowing them to do so without risking falling into a life of poverty.
Basic income can have an overwhelmingly positive impact on every aspect of society. Why is the current system of inherently flawed, outdated, and damaging income supports still seen as being, somehow, a better alternative to a system that promotes health, dignity, and responsible use of tax dollars?
Bill S-233 simply asks to investigate how a basic income could be implemented. Isn’t it the responsibility of all parliamentarians and senators to investigate options–especially an option which so many health, food, justice, agriculture, fisheries–and more–experts support?
Coalition Canada and the basic income movement welcomes responsible and informed debate on this important issue. We meet regularly with MPs and senators to discuss their concerns and provide evidence-based research that can inform further productive discussion. We welcome meeting with Senator Bellemare and any member of government who is skeptical about basic income. Skepticism can lead to good policy–as long as it is open to evidence and fact.
Huddle publishes commentaries from groups and individuals on important business issues facing the Maritimes. These commentaries do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Huddle. To submit a commentary for consideration, contact editor Mark Leger: [email protected].