One can judge the quality of a
society by the way it treats its poor, the government has a role in extending
care to those who are unfortunate – “what you do to the least of my brethren
you do to me” someone once said – I love the quote because it personalizes the
issue. The challenge, of course, is striking a balance between extending help
to the unfortunate and taxing those who can help, out of existence. Please,
before you dismiss minimum income out of hand, consider the following.
My stepfather Charlie McDowell, lived through an economic rationalization, aptly dubbed the “Dirty Thirties”, the hardship he and his family faced was unbearable, at least to hear of, and more so, to think that it could happen again to my grandsons. Another man I knew was Rod McIndoe, he too lived through the thirties, a bigger than life kind of a man – logger and contractor; I ran some regurgitated anti-unemployment rhetoric by him one day thinking he might approve, he looked at me and laughed as though to say “if you only knew” – then he said, “it is the only thing keeping us from another depression”; this took place in the 1970s. These two men were the epitome of self-made and self-reliant and they both taught me the value of compassion and they had no inhibition in suggesting there was a role to play for government in helping the less fortunate. They knew hardship, the kind of hardship that let you go to bed cold with a growling stomach. They knew a hardship, I’d wager, that has never been experienced by a single person governing this country at the moment, me included.
Whether you're poor because you're unemployed, underemployed, retired absent income or disabled – you're poor, you require resources. Presently we have several government departments dispensing funds to the people in need of help, CPP, Employment Insurance, Social Services … the list goes on. Every department has its own administration, set of criteria for helping, and complex operations – all of which represent OVERHEAD that adds to the costs of delivering services. Worse, much of the thrust of the administration of the programs is to ensure that people are only getting what they are entitled to – in large measure these departments assess people against set criteria and dispense funds accordingly. This is, at its core, a policing function, the challenge that arises from this process is an administrative cost, dollars spent running a department instead of helping people. If we are going to spend money helping the people who have a circumstance the effects poverty, we need to ensure that the money we allocate for help – helps.
The simplest way to ensure a base living is to provide everyone with a base income. The government would simply distribute cheques to everyone, every two weeks, those who had income exceeding the base amount would have the “base income” “clawed back” (taken back) at tax time. This is a very elegant solution, we can be more generous, the stigma associated with social service use is gone and a base living is established.
This also is a de facto floor on
living generally; minimum wage, for example, would be rendered redundant, given
that the marginal advantage of employment would force wages to a living wage.
The other advantage here with respect to minimum wage, is that absent the need
for a minimum wage for adults, the market could accommodate youth – as it is
often the complaint with minimum wages that the youth are affected due to the
axis of experience and employment cost working against them. The disincentive to take an
entry-level position would be nullified by structuring the program in a manner
that accounts for the marginal benefit of working – that is to say – there would
be a graduated exit from minimum income to full employment that would incent participation
in the low paid employment strata.
Self Reliance is an under touted value now days, the ability to care for one’s own by one’s own initiative and skills. Self Reliance is a product of knowledge and resources, it needs a launch pad. Some are lucky enough to acquire the elements of Self Reliance from their parent's teaching and the good fortune that applying their skill provides income. Others require that we invest in them, to develop human capital.
Modern society is like none other in human history, in the main, it is much better than ever before, however, it has become faster, more intense to participate in and much more sophisticated. As a result, a larger portion of the population is unable to participate due to an inability to attend to modern technologies and manage the stress associated with a more rapid-paced society. Automation, mechanization, offshore manufacturing, and other macro trends coupled with governments’ inability to educate people, so people can move up the participatory food chain, has also pushed more people to the margins.
In business we often refer to a business as having “critical mass”, having critical mass being a circumstance whereby, the business has optimum capital and human resources to effectively participate in a given market circumstance. Being impoverished is a circumstance of being massless, no resources, and the longer one is impoverished the worse it gets – it is hard to go to a job interview, or knock on any door when you’re missing a front tooth. When an established person’s car breaks down, they call someone and put the repairs on their credit card, an impoverished person misses work or looses work due to the loss of transportation. For the impoverished person, problems are bigger and opportunities are harder to get to.
A minimum income fulfils state obligations to Liberty in Section 7 of the Charter, Life, Liberty and Security of Person. The most coercive element that exists in society is a growling stomach; it is the absence of any secure income that drives people into exploitive circumstances. We can afford to do this, in fact, it is likely to cost less, the minimum income is the most efficient way to deliver resources due to a reduction in administrative costs. It requires the co-operation of the provinces, as it promises to significantly reduce the cost of delivering services they are likely to want to participate.
Minimum Income has inherent in it a
transition, a transition that will eliminate the requirement for the personnel
at the Employment Insurance Department, the CPP Department and several others.
They will see Minimum Income as a threat, they have a job and they want to keep
it – a perfectly understandable position to take – however, position that can foment resistance
to change. They need to be guaranteed that
their interests will be addressed, some will retire, many, with a basket of good
skills, can be redirected to other work the government needs to be done – none should
find themselves in a reduced circumstance.
