draft proposal for a Citizen's Income program for Canada
February, 2007.
All present social programs could be rolled into the CI. This would cover much of the cost outright and save a lot on administration. It would be given to everyone, so it would increase most people's income and so their taxable income and their spending on consumer goods, therefore increasing government revenues. It would still require new taxes on people who have too much.
The best new tax would be a tax on wealth, meaning all fixed assets beyond a set level. E.g.; exemption $200 000, tax rate 5%, net assets $500 000, wealth tax is $15 000 per year. The tax is on all assets including real estate, investments, household goods, jewellery, etc. A small unincorporated business and any assets associated with it are considered as personal assets.
GST is a tax on the poor and working people, is expensive to administer, and should be done away with. Under CI it makes no sense; people would be taxed on their CI.
The lowest tax rate must be set at the level of the CI, which of course should not be taxed. Income taxes should be progressive and not flat rate and there should be a maximum income after which taxes are 100%. This should be at 30 times the CI rate.
A CI cannot be done through a negative income tax because the payments must be at least every month, not yearly or quarterly. NIT would be more complicated to administer and would be more prone to abuses by governments and the wealthy; obscuring the real maximum tax rates.
All tax rebates should be abolished; only people who pay income taxes can use them. All personal tax exemptions should be abolished, without exception.
d. low interest and no interest money.
It should be axiomatic that much of the country's socio-economic problems come from the capture by private banks of the governments power and responsibility to issue the currency. Government must begin taking this power back or no attempt to improve social conditions or stave off environmental disaster will work.
If citizens and their governments did not have to pay for everything two or three times over in compounding interest, there would be a lot more available for every one.
Of course debt free money cannot be used to cover operating or living expenses, or we will be taking wheel barrows full of money to go grocery shopping. But it can and should fund all public capital projects, including housing of all kinds.
a. monthly in mail or direct deposit
The CI should be delivered by a demogrant delivered monthly or even bimonthly by mail or by direct deposit. Once people's accounts are set up, there would be few administration needs for the living expense except to adjust for changes in situation, such as a move to a lower or higher cost area, or children being born or leaving their mothers.
There will be the inevitable policing for people who will try to defraud the system, e.g.; creating false identities or false addresses.
b. based on living expenses by areas
The country would be divided into zones according to the local costs of living and housing costs. The CI program would annually determine and add up the living costs in each area. The living costs should not include housing and utility costs. Transportation costs should be the costs of a car, or the costs of transit, depending on the area.
When a citizen moves from one area to another, his or her LEG changes accordingly.
c. unconditional and non withdrawable
A citizen's income is given as a right of citizenship, because we cannot have a real democracy unless everyone is free. No one is free and able to participate in the community as a free person, when he or she has to take orders from someone else or risk losing the means of living.
Experiments with guaranteed incomes have shown that most people continue working about as much as before. But if people decided to work less, it does not matter.
The income should only be withdrawn if civil rights are withdrawn, as when someone is convicted of a serious offence.
An amendment must be made to the charter of rights, entrenching the right to an income without condition, and to medical care, support to raise children, and education to the limit of ones ability.
d. not including housing and utility expenses
The LEG will not cover housing and utility expenses, which should be under a different grant. Everyone who has a LEG must have a housing grant as well.
The HEG is more flexible, to allow for different types of housing to suit people's needs and desires. The one constant is that basic utilities; heat, water, power, should be part of the monthly housing expense, otherwise there is no incentive for managers of housing to maximise energy efficiency. The residents of housing can do little to effect energy efficiency.
For people who for whatever reason are unable to live in a home by themselves, grants must be provided that meet the cost of providing the specific type of housing. The grants will be separated into operating and capital costs, the former funded by tax revenue and the latter by issuing credit.
The grants will be attached to the individual and negotiated with local governments and housing authorities. Provincial governments have no interests in these programs.
For people who wish to live in apartment type housing and do not wish to own, a rent subsidy grant will be paid with the LEG. It must be conditional that the subsidy cover the full cost of rent and utilities, without drawing anything out of the LEG, that the rent reflect a reasonable cost for the housing, and that it come with a long term agreement for stable rent.
Local government authorities will administer these programs under federal supervision. Provincial governments have no interest.
It is usually better if people owned their housing. However, the land under the housing must be leased; public lands must remain in public hands. There are plenty of innovative ideas for creating new, usually co-operative type, housing. People should be encouraged to come up with their own ideas, and provided expert advice in realising them.
People can use their HEGs to pay part of private mortgages. The maximum amount of the HEG is geared to rental costs in the area.
Local authorities should administer these programs under federal frameworks. Provincial governments have no interests in them.
A child care grant will be paid to the mother of every child, to cover all the usual costs of raising children. Every mother has the right to stay home and raise her children, or have access to day care, as she chooses.
The mother must stay home with the child during its first year, and will be paid a special needs allowance equivalent to the forgone income.
Day care programs must be run by local school boards according to federal guidelines. The funds to pay for it comes as part of the mother's child care grant.
The mother receives the child care grant until the child is 18 or leaves home sooner. In the latter case the child may then begin receiving a CI, subject to approval and depending on the situation.
It should no more cost anyone to go to university that to go to grade school. Education grants will be available to cover the tuition of anyone attending a university.
Every person carrying student debts will have them written off by the federal government by an issue of new interest free money, and people partly compensated for debts they have been forced to carry under this program.
Under no circumstances should special grants be given out for medical needs, because the 'fee for service' model of health care absolutely must be broken in this country.
A reengineered health care system must be established in this country which must be based on free care in democratically controlled community clinics by doctors on salaries.
These clinics must be funded and protected by a national network, with an independent budget and fixed share of national revenues. This network must take over all aspects of health policy, including hospitals, medical training, and regulation of pharmaceuticals.
A national health care network must be mandated by a national referendum to provide effective medical care to everybody. It must be ring fenced against the attacks it will face from interests greedy for the huge profits from private health care.
The system must include a patient's bill of rights and a system of patient advocates so that it never becomes a danger to patients.
a. provincial aspects
Provincial governments are the enemies of the low income people. They need to be stripped of authority over 'everything social'. These powers and revenues need to be distributed between the federal and local governments.
CI and the social support system that follows from it must be a partnership between federal and local government. The federal government finances and provides a framework of standards, and local governments administer. Local government must be empowered as an 'order of government' in its own right.
c. consumption limiting aspects
The preservation of a sustaining environment requires restricting consumption to what the environment can support, and to that degree of individual consumption that anyone has a reasonable right to expect. The only way people can be convinced to accept reduced work time and reduced consumption is by guaranteeing everybody a reasonable standard of living.
d. population stability aspects.
Achieving ecological stability requires achieving population stability. Once the productivity of a country has reached a limit, further immigration to it will increase environmental burden and not increase the per capita consumption and quality of life.
Further, there are problems with having an income tied to citizenship when you have many people in the country who are not citizens, and many people inside and outside the country with dual citizenship. A citizen's income requires a rethink of immigration policy.
The term 'Citizen's Income' is the right term for what is demanded, and must be defended and brought into public consciousness. It correctly states why people would be getting the income and cuts short the main arguments against it.
Guaranteed Annual Income has come to mean a wage top up for people who are working, often through a negative income tax.
A 'Basic Income' emphasises the word 'basic'. We do not want bare basics, we want an income that enables everyone to be on a roughly equal footing with everyone else.
a. local, participatory democracy
To get a CI implemented, there must be governments who can be made to listen. A CI movement, to succeed, must work with other movements to restructure government into a more democratic, consensual, and participative mode. Particularly, true proportional voting systems must be implemented, with decision making power in all matters devolved to the lowest possible level.
The reason unemployment and poverty wages are spreading is because there is less need for labour all the time, including skilled labour. The only way to have a reasonable level of employment is with reduced working hours. The best way to achieve this is with a Citizen's Income that allows people to negotiate work times and wages and enjoy more leisure without a loss of income. Until then, support should be given to efforts to reduce work through compulsory methods, by mandating a legal work week and restricting over time.
c. entrenchment of income rights
Efforts to resist extension of income security and roll back existing security are usually in the form of hate attacks against the poor. This must be directly confronted as hate speech no different from racism, misogynism, etc. It must be silenced by all available means. The right to an income without condition, and to protection against discrimination based on source of income, must be brought into the law by precedents, and included in the charter of rights.
d. building a powerful organisation
There are special difficulties to building a poor people's organisation. If it is to be kept on track, it must continue to be directed by people who have experienced poverty and the inequities of the 'work or starve' system. But it needs to raise money and to engage the services of people with administrative and technical knowledge. It needs to build alliances with other movements.
There is the danger of co-optation by those who do not really share the goals of a CI movement. Intimidation will also be encountered from those who are threatened by the idea of CI and of low income people organising themselves. The worst harassment will be from 'poverty pimp' type organisations who see this as a threat to their incomes. The best defence will be an offence to get them defunded.
There is no point to noisy demonstrations. The CI movement must try not to get people into trouble, and defend them if they are in trouble due to their activism.
The basic means of promoting CI are public awareness, legal action, and engagement in the political process without co-optation.
TR