Further to this discussion, did anyone notice yesterday's Toronto Star editorial
entitled "Income guarantee deserves a new look"
(http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/175460)?

In response, I submitted the following letter to the editor this morning:

"I applaud the Toronto Star for promoting public debate about a guaranteed
annual income (GAI) and sincerely hope our elected representatives listen.

As one of the most popular actions recommended by respondents to the National
Council of Welfare survey, the GAI has two major advantages.

First, it eliminates the stigma of means-tested programs. With a universal GAI,
low-income people no longer would have to endure the suspicious glares of state
officials trying to determine whether they are really poor enough to “deserve”
social assistance. Every citizen, regardless of other income, would receive a
GAI.

Second, just as universal public health care is far more efficient than
fragmented semi-privatized systems, so too is a GAI far more efficient than the
mystifying hodgepodge of cash transfers we currently have. If anything, taxation
and bureaucracy would decrease, not increase, with a universal GAI.

The real political question is the level at which the GAI should be set. Can we
agree to a level that will eliminate poverty without creating undue work
disincentives?

I believe we can – provided that we also invest in public education, job
training, health care and child care, and provided that we maintain faith in
human goodness. A GAI may not produce a utopia, but it will combat poverty and
make the world a better place."

Jeff Denis
Toronto, ON






Quoting Jeff Denis <[log in to unmask]>:

> All the major parties have considered a guaranteed annual income at one time
> or
> another. The Conservatives proposed it back in the '60s, as did Milton
> Friedman
> in the US. I saw Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute give a
> provocative talk this fall about a GAI. Of course, the amount these people
> are
> willing to give is pathetically small (in Murray's case, $5,000 per adult per
> year is supposed to replace the entire welfare state). And pilot experiments
> that have been done in Canada, the US, and elsewhere have failed largely for
> this reason.
>
> Among more progressive people, some elements of the NDP have proposed a GAI
> as
> an alternative to policies like the minimum wage and social assistance (but
> not
> a replacement for national public programs like health care). John's
> suggestion
> may be another way to go.
>
> As I wrote several weeks ago, I am supportive of a guaranteed annual livable
> income (so long as public health care and education systems are retained and
> public childcare developed). But two questions remain, which I'll repost
> (John
> and a couple others responded the first time round):
>
> 1. How do we set GLI levels? Specifically, can we create a GLI that is high
> enough to eliminate poverty, while at the same time not so high that it
> reduces
> work incentives and risks economic collapse?
>
> [I think the answer lies in some combination of civic education, active labor
> market policy (i.e., job (re-)training), and faith in human goodness. But I'm
> not sure this will satisfy all critics.]
>
> 2. Assuming we can agree on an appropriate GLI level, what do we do with
> other
> related policies? I suggested that the GLI would replace the minimum wage and
> social assistance. But what about employment insurance and public pensions?
> Would these be retained or modified? If you advocate complete replacement of
> all social policies, how do you build in legal protections to prevent future
> (reactionary) politicians from tampering with the GLI?
>
> If we can develop good answers to these questions, then I think we can safely
> start the revolution. :-)
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> Quoting "Kalda, Robyn" <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> > The Green Party seems to be developing an interest in this and in
> guaranteed
> > income generally.  I read some of Elizabeth May's comments in the paper
> > today, and they're hosting  "A Conversation on Poverty and Guaranteed
> Income"
> > in Vancouver on January 21. Registration seems to be free, appropriately
> > enough.
> >
> > http://www.greenparty.ca/page332.html?&MMN_position=194:194
> >
> > Robyn Kalda
> > Health Promotion Information Specialist
> > OPC Health Promotion Resource Centre
> > [log in to unmask] (NEW - please change your address book)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Social Determinants of Health [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
> GRETA
> > DOUCET
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 4:16 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [SDOH] I'm getting sooooo frustrated with the system
> >
> >
> > Hi List Serve members,
> > I haven't been around for a while..but then again, I have been here for a
> > fairly long time (Alive I mean). Has anyone in Canada done an analysis of
> > what it would cost to provide everyone with a living income versus spending
> > so much time and energy trying not to do so?
> >
> > -------------------
> > Problems/Questions? Send it to Listserv owner: [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send the following message in the text section -- NOT the
> > subject header --  to [log in to unmask]
> >
> > SIGNOFF SDOH
> >
> > DO NOT SEND IT BY HITTING THE REPLY BUTTON. THIS SENDS THE MESSAGE TO THE
> > ENTIRE LISTSERV AND STILL DOES NOT REMOVE YOU.
> >
> > To subscribe to the SDOH list, send the following message to
> > [log in to unmask] in the text section, NOT in the subject header.
> >
> > SUBSCRIBE SDOH yourfirstname yourlastname
> >
> > To post a message to all 1200+ subscribers, send it to [log in to unmask]
> > Include in the Subject, its content, and location and date, if relevant.
> >
> > For a list of SDOH members, send a request to [log in to unmask]
> >
> > To receive messages only once a day, send the following message to
> > [log in to unmask]
> > SET SDOH DIGEST
> >
> > To view the SDOH archives, go to:
> > https://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/sdoh.html
> >
>
> -------------------
> Problems/Questions? Send it to Listserv owner: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send the following message in the text section -- NOT the
> subject header --  to [log in to unmask]
>
> SIGNOFF SDOH
>
> DO NOT SEND IT BY HITTING THE REPLY BUTTON. THIS SENDS THE MESSAGE TO THE
> ENTIRE LISTSERV AND STILL DOES NOT REMOVE YOU.
>
> To subscribe to the SDOH list, send the following message to
> [log in to unmask] in the text section, NOT in the subject header.
>
> SUBSCRIBE SDOH yourfirstname yourlastname
>
> To post a message to all 1200+ subscribers, send it to [log in to unmask]
> Include in the Subject, its content, and location and date, if relevant.
>
> For a list of SDOH members, send a request to [log in to unmask]
>
> To receive messages only once a day, send the following message to
> [log in to unmask]
> SET SDOH DIGEST
>
> To view the SDOH archives, go to:
> https://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/sdoh.html
>

-------------------
Problems/Questions? Send it to Listserv owner: [log in to unmask]


To unsubscribe, send the following message in the text section -- NOT the subject header --  to [log in to unmask]

SIGNOFF SDOH

DO NOT SEND IT BY HITTING THE REPLY BUTTON. THIS SENDS THE MESSAGE TO THE ENTIRE LISTSERV AND STILL DOES NOT REMOVE YOU.

To subscribe to the SDOH list, send the following message to [log in to unmask] in the text section, NOT in the subject header.

SUBSCRIBE SDOH yourfirstname yourlastname

To post a message to all 1200+ subscribers, send it to [log in to unmask]
Include in the Subject, its content, and location and date, if relevant.

For a list of SDOH members, send a request to [log in to unmask]

To receive messages only once a day, send the following message to [log in to unmask]
SET SDOH DIGEST

To view the SDOH archives, go to: https://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/sdoh.html