People get out of poverty faster with a guaranteed livable income says Ontario senator

www.aptnnews.ca Livable income bill will help people Senator tells Nation to Nation

Senator Kim Pate says she introduced a livable income bill was to start a discussion about how to help people get out of poverty.

89 comments

Poverty is caused by a lack of money.

90
"People with a reasonable income aren't poor."

39
- Fucking weird! Are you implying poverty is caused by a lack of money? That's very hard to believe.
  
  14
- Yes, and no.
  
  You can be a millionaire and end up broke.
  
  Some people are "poor" because they have no idea how to manage their money and live well beyond their means.
  
  But having a livable income still matters, obviously.
  
  -11
  
  You could be great at managing money and still poor because of the systems in place to benefit the wealthy and punish the poor.
  
  Again, being good with money will not dismantle the way it is against us.
  
  5
  
  Let's not conflate income and wealth. With a living wage you may not be able to accumulate wealth, but at least you will have your daily essentials covered.
  
  My concern with a universal income is that it discourages healthy people from working and thus contributing to our collective wellbeing. So while in principle it helps some people who currently fall through the cracks of our welfare system, it also reduces the pool of people contributing to it through their taxes. Is it a net win? I don't know.
  
  -35
"People get out of poverty faster when poverty is 100% optional"

More news at 11.

28
- This. My city is doing a "poverty simulation" local event to "see what it's like to be poor in (insert my city here) when the MAJORITY of us in this city ARE poor. There are homeless camps everywhere, too.
  
  4
every UBI study has had positive results, but let's run a few more just to be sure..

26
- Well the interesting thing about this article is that it's about a pair of bills, one in the HoC and one in the Senate, to implement a program rather than a study.
  
  14
- There’s a difference between pilot programmes and full implementations
  
  People can’t afford things as is and companies raised their prices just because so imagine how they’d feel with the excuse of UBI
  
  The flip side is they raise prices anyway so you might as well have UBI
  
  6
  
  The flip side is they raise prices anyway so you might as well have UBI
  
  Exactly! They raise costs to increase profits even when their production costs go down due to automation and other system streamlining.
  
  5
What a concept!

24
So the cure to poverty was money all along?

19
People in poverty no longer live in poverty once they have an income that provides for the necessities?

Holy shit, who knew?

15
I summarized the two readings of the bill. (Claude AI did, really)

The first speech from the Sponsor (February 8, 2022)

Senator Pate gave a speech introducing Bill S-233, which would create a national framework to implement a guaranteed livable basic income program in Canada. She argued that poverty is a major social issue that needs to be urgently addressed. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated income inequality and disproportionately affected marginalized groups. A guaranteed livable income could improve health, social, and economic outcomes for low-income Canadians.

The speech outlined how poverty puts people at greater risk of poor health, food insecurity, and homelessness. COVID-19 has spotlighted these vulnerabilities, as lower-income groups have suffered higher mortality rates. Senator Pate cited research showing guaranteed income pilots reduced hospital visits and improved participants' health. She argued a national program is feasible, building on existing supports like the Canada Child Benefit. Costs could be offset by reducing other programs and realizing savings in areas like healthcare.

There is growing momentum for guaranteed income, with support across party lines. Public opinion also favors it. Senator Pate positioned the bill as responding to decades of calls to action on poverty reduction. She appealed to fellow Senators to stop perpetuating myths about poverty and act boldly to implement this long-overdue policy. The speech was a compelling case for guaranteed income as a powerful tool for promoting equity and dignity.

The Response (April 18, 2023)

Senator MacDonald responded to Senator Pate's speech introducing Bill S-233, which would create a framework for a guaranteed basic income (GBI) program in Canada. He commended Senator Pate's advocacy for the poor, but expressed concerns about the bill's lack of detail and fiscal implications.

Senator MacDonald outlined analyses questioning the affordability and sustainability of a GBI program. He cited research suggesting it could cost hundreds of billions annually, require tax increases, and reduce work incentives. Senator MacDonald also noted provincial studies concluding GBI is too costly and ineffective for poverty reduction compared to targeted measures.

Given Canada's debt and deficits, Senator MacDonald argued the country cannot realistically consider implementing GBI currently. He contended the solution is generating wealth through natural resource development, not expanding welfare states. Senator MacDonald suggested Conservatives could support GBI to replace current programs if fiscal conditions improve under a future Conservative government.

In conclusion, Senator MacDonald maintained Conservatives oppose Bill S-233. While GBI aims are laudable, he believes the bill's lack of detail and Canada's finances make it unrealistic presently. He advocated defeating the bill or sending it to committee for further scrutiny.

Discussion last Tuesday (Oct 17)

I'll put up a summary of the transcript once it becomes available or if I can extract it from the video.

11
- Senator MacDonald outlined analyses questioning the affordability and sustainability of a GBI program. He cited research suggesting it could cost hundreds of billions annually, require tax increases, and reduce work incentives.
  
  Y'know what really increases "work incentives"? Good wages and decent working conditions.
  
  Shitty bosses offering shitty pay at shitty workplaces is the real reason business owners are crying that "nobody wants to work any more".
  
  11
  
  Agreed. It's such a disingenuous argument. It's the usual casting of poor people as lazy, and what they need is a good lashing to get them to work.
  
  Like... No. People want dignity. People want to feel satisfied in their lives. UBI trials have shown that they use that money to get the life/jobs that they want. They're just not gonna be forced into shitty jobs as you said. This last bit is the part not said out loud.
  
  11
  
  I think you are (or maybe I am) misunderstanding what they mean by work incentives. I think they might be referring to the kinda stuff normally referred to as benefits? That said, if the value of an incentive/benefit is being reduced by UBI, then that's a pretty shit incentive and probably shouldn't have been an incentive (as opposed to legally mandated) to begin with.
  
  5
I feel like the ratio of people who think this is obvious, is a bit higher than those who understand how this is also a net gain to society.

9
Mind = blown

9
No shit.

8
Isn't that what 'trickle down economics' was supposed to be? Give tons and tons of money to the richest people and eventually some of all that money will eventually trickle down to the poor people at the bottom? Wasn't the problem that there was never enough money to make this system work?

According to conservatives, the problem with trickle down economics is not that the idea failed ... it was always a lack of money.

How freaking stupid does the most highly educated people in our government have to be to think that giving money to rich and not giving it to the poor makes sense?

Either they are completely inept and ignorant ... or they are complicit and understand that coddling the rich gives everyone in power a kickback to maintain the status quo.

8
- There was enough money, there was always enough money. There was always too much greed.
  
  9
  
  “Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.”
  
  10
- Give a company a million dollars to increase production and they will use it to buy back their stock because why would they increase production if there's no one at the bottom to pay for it and increase demand?
  
  6
isn't that what livable means?

5
Thanks, Captain Obvious!

5
I heard another Ontario senator said dogs without fur get cold faster. Crazy times.

4
Post locked for cleanup

3
funny how printing a tonne of money and handing it out only seemed to cause inflation putting more people in poverty

-16
- It really doesn't. you're just falling for conservative bullshit.
  
  [H]istorically, economists have largely agreed that the link between government spending and inflation remains weak. - source
  
  8