Welfare For Everybody? Collectivism In Capitalism
The Toronto Star has an interesting article today from former Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament Reginald Stackhouse who suggests a "guaranteed" income program which would ensure all Canadians have a base minimum of financial support. His idea is not new or unique, although it's certainly not been forwarded very often by conservatives. And yet there is some definite interest in this concept as it is, eliminating the need for such programs as social assistance, employment insurance, and old age pension. A program which would guarantee a base income for all Canadians would also alleviate homelessness, a growing epidemic, and supplement the income of the lowest earning Canadians. Mr.Stackhouse argues that it doesn't particularly create a disincentive to work, since the baseline salary would be just enough to pay for essentials as one would receive on social assistance and employment benefit programs. It certainly sounds odd to think of a conservative advocating a universal collectivist program, so let's look into it a little deeper, shall we?
Laissez-faire capitalists believe in the invisible balancing of supply and demand and the natural efficiencies of the economy. And yet no capitalist system has been able to control inflationary aspects of employment growth strategies on the free market alone. Milton Friedman, working under Republican President Richard Nixon proposed a Negative Income Tax in 1962 as a way of escaping work-status benefits which frees corporate interests from participatory involvement in the welfare of their staff. Capitalists also understand the fact that true poverty does not come without a financial price to the economy, with increased crime and social unrest which can erode wealth, necessitating social control expenditures. As Mr.Stackhouse points out, these programs have been implemented in some form in countries with high GDP and strong economies like Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, and the Netherlands.
What is an interesting aspect of UBI [Universal Basic Income] is that large and costly parts of the government are completely eradicated [social assistance, employment insurance, and old age pension]. The concept that a basic wage cannot be paid to all citizens is also put to bed by the fact that Canada will soon be paying a large portion of it's population this very thing in a few years when the baby boomers are all on old age benefits. In New Zealand, an unconditional basic income was proposed and implemented by the Democratic Party to address persistent problems of unemployment and income security. Philosophically, UBI was argued necessary in the country in order to provide the basic utility to society which a person needs in order to escape the dehumanization of poverty. Wikipedia cites Portugal as having implemented a system like this in 1997, but as stated in the text and on subsequent google searches, the policy is residualist with the amount being vastly below any poverty line and with other programs which negate the benefit.
Of course there are obvious pragmatic considerations and problems to a UBI system. Strong objections would come from people who say that those who don't work and contribute nothing to society should not be afforded a basic personal allowance, although this is partially refuted by the cost of maintaining those who do not have the base essentials to life through drug treatment, imprisonment, and social degradation brought on by crime and homelessness. As Mr.Stackhouse points out, it has been proposed in Canada by Robert Stanfield of the Progressive Conservative Party, and the precedent was easily broken by George W Bush's own "stimulus plan" in which he basically provided a UBI for all of America. Of course, it does still reek of collectivist philosophy, if not outright economic communism. But taxation is a form of collectivism in our progressive tax system, and the redistribution is already doled out in forms of comparative relief to the poor. It will probably never be implemented in Canada, but it might be a good idea as a replacement of costly and bloated bureaucracies like Employment Insurance and Social Assistance for the underclass. Reginald Stackhouse may not have provided a realistic proposal for Canada, but he certainly has given us something to think about.
Cross-posted to Kats 'n Dawgs.
