Category Archives: Basic Income Guarantee

ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE

Our friend Robert Romano of Americans for Limited Government (GetLiberty.org) has a great piece up this week detailing the pitfalls of a proposed universal basic income system.

What is universal basic income? Itsa proposal in which the federal government would guarantee that all citizens whether they work or not receive a specified annual income (or basic income guarantee) beginning after their sixteenth birthday.

According to Romano, such a system would mark the end of capitalism as we know it. Specifically, he says adding this new entitlement would crowd out other potential opportunities in the economy. He also says it would dis-incentivize risk-taking and reward complacency wrecking individuals sense of purpose.

Individuals, working less, would transition to simply being consumers, Romano wrote.

Those are all good points and if politicians in the United States were to propose implementing a basic income guaranteeas a supplement toour existing entitlement behemoth, our founding editor Will Folks would most assuredly throw one of his legendary tin-foil hatted hissy fits.

Seriously something like that would completely set him off. And with good reason!

Entitlements are already bankrupting American taxpayers. Does anyone seriously think that our government which is currently$20 trillion in debt can afford to spend $2.5 trillion annually (at least) on a new entitlement program?

Of course not

But what if such a program was not offered in addition to existing entitlements but rather offered as a replacement?

If so, that would seem verysimilar to economist Milton Friedmans negative income tax. Under this plan, individuals below acertain monetary level would not only avoid having to pay income taxes, they would receive direct cash supplements from the federal government money they could spend on whatever they choose.

The goal of the negative income tax? Replacing the perverse, dependency-inducing incentives of the current welfare system and empowering a more consumer-driven benefits system all while eliminating vast swaths of bureaucracy.

We dont necessarily like any form of welfare, but its easy to see how such a system would be infinitely preferable to the current, ever-expanding maze of entitlement, we wrote in addressing this issue back in 2014.

Were hard core limited government libertarians here at FITSNews, but we try not go all in on our ideology or anyone elses ideology, for that matter. We believe in data, and we believe the data proves conclusively that the era of big government in America has been an unqualified economic failure.

In our view, it should be the policy of government at every level to focus on core functions and let the private sector do the rest. To the extent there needs to be a social safety net to provide for the poor, we have no problem with some sort of basic income guarantee or negative income tax so long as this benefit is provided in lieu of existing entitlements, not in addition to them.

Also we would insist upon certain work requirements for able-bodied recipients without children so as not to further perpetuate dependency in our nation.

Loading

Thank you for voting

Your input is appreciated!

Please select an option!

Got something youd like to say in response to one of our stories? In addition to our always lively comments section (below), please feel free to submit your own guest column or letter to the editor via-email HERE or via our tip-line HERE

Banner via iStock

Excerpt from:

About That Universal Basic Income Idea - FITSNews

There was once a town in Canada that essentially eliminated poverty, and at the time no one seemed to know. One filmmaker is doing his best to shine a bright light on the research into this town.

Vincent Santiago is producing The Mincome Experiment documentary that looks into the Manitoba experiments in the 1970s, which provided a minimum income guarantee to the entire town of Dauphin. Santiago recently spoke with The UBI Podcast about his project.

The experiment was completed but there was a change in government in Manitoba and federal level so experiment was never analyzed, Santiago said.

That is until Dr. Evelyn Forget of the University of Manitoba began digging up these old records. Forget found there was a reduction in hospital visits and instances of mental health issues in the area with a minimum income. Despite worries, there was no large reduction in the amount of work being done, Santiago said.

The only sector that was affected was the mothers who gave birth and the teenagers who stopped working to finish high school, Santiago said.

Santiago said any new idea like minimum income guarantee will cause backlash, especially if the research is not explained well.

Just like when they first introduced universal health care in Canada, there was a lot of opposition, he said.

In order to explain these results, Santiago said it is important for the basic income movement to focus on public relations. He said his documentary is an important way to show the positive results of minimum income systems.

I would like to make this documentary to dispel a lot of these misconceptions, he said.

Currently, Santiago is running a crowdfunding campaign to help cover the costs of production for the film.

Tyler Prochazka has written 65 articles.

Tyler Prochazka is a Fulbright scholar completing his Master's in Asia Pacific Studies at National Chengchi University in Taiwan. He is the features editor of Basic Income News and a coordinator for UBI Taiwan. Tyler launched the first Asia-Pacific basic income conference in 2017. Support my work with UBI Taiwan: https://www.patreon.com/typro Facebook.com/TaiwanUBI @typro

Follow this link:

Podcast: Uncovering the town that overcame poverty - Basic Income News

Last week, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg received an honorary degree from Harvard University. At the commencement, he promoted the idea of a basic income guarantee, joining several other tech leaders in advocating for this idea. Tech leaders can see a world where robots and AI are doing a lot of work currently performed by humans, and so are already considering how those who lose their jobs will be retrained for the new economy that emerges. While some are focused on rearranging deckchairs, they are focused on how this workforce can be retrained and deployed in the new industries that will emerge, and most importantly, what will resonate with them.

Purpose is that sense that we are part of something bigger than ourselves, that we are needed, that we have something better ahead to work for. Purpose is what creates true happiness.

Youre graduating at a time when this is especially important. When our parents graduated, purpose reliably came from your job, your church, your community. But today, technology and automation are eliminating many jobs. Membership in communities is declining. Many people feel disconnected and depressed, and are trying to fill a void.

Zuckerberg focused on several themes in his speech, but sprinkled throughout was the idea that people need to take risks to find purpose. He acknowledged his own privilege, and the idea that the reason he could take risks was because of his background and parents. However, without that cushion, he wouldnt have had the freedom to learn new skills and take risks. We already know that an important public health issue is growing income inequality, and if only those with a safety net are allowed to take big risks with associated big payoffs, then we are limiting our pool of ideas to a small group of select individuals. From his speech:

Look, I know a lot of entrepreneurs, and I dont know a single person who gave up on starting a business because they might not make enough money. But I know lots of people who havent pursued dreams because they didnt have a cushion to fall back on if they failed.

We all know we dont succeed just by having a good idea or working hard. We succeed by being lucky too. If I had to support my family growing up instead of having time to code, if I didnt know Id be fine if Facebook didnt work out, I wouldnt be standing here today. If were honest, we all know how much luck weve had.

Every generation expands its definition of equality. Previous generations fought for the vote and civil rights. They had the New Deal and Great Society. Now its our time to define a new social contract for our generation.

As a result, Silicon Valley will be keeping a close eye on Ontario. The Government of Ontario has announced a basic income pilot project under which eligible individuals will receive up to $16,989 per year, while couples will receive up to $24,027 per year.This program has skeptics and detractors. The idea that this will disincentivize people to work, or that it will be more expensive than existing programs are common ones that emerge. The program proposed by the Government of Ontario will address this through a rigorous evaluation.They have committed to a three-year study in three Ontario communities, and will be measuring the following outcomes: food security, stress and anxiety, mental health, employment, health and healthcare usage, housing stability, and education and training. The latter is what Zuckerberg and others in Silicon Valley are most interested in, as having the time and ability to learn new skills is a luxury not very many people have.

Millenials can expect to change jobs 4 times in their first 10 years out of college; almost double that of those graduating from 1986 to 1990. With the skills required to join the workforce constantly evolving and changing, giving people a safety net to not only take risks, but to learn new skills, is vital to ensuring we continue to innovate collectively. Giving more people with the opportunity to take risks, could result in more creative and unique solutions is a good thing for all involved.

The full text of his commencement address is available here.

Follow this link:

Mark Zuckerberg supports universal basic income - PLoS Blogs (blog)

The majority of Canadians support Ontarios basic income program but four in ten question whether the magic number $17,000 is enough.

An online survey of around 2,000 Canadians by Campaign Research found that 53 per cent approve of Ontarios basic income pilot, which will support a select 4,000 low-income earners in Hamilton, Thunder Bay and Lindsay with up to $16,989 per year and $24,027 for a couple (less 50 per cent of any earned income) in a bid to pin down the effects it can have on job prospects and quality of life. There will be an additional $6,000 per year for individuals with disabilities.

Of the basic income pilot supporters, eight per cent say they think the yearly income of $17,000 is too much, 48 per cent say its about the right amount and 39 per cent say it is too little.

Sheila Regehr, chair of non-profit Basic Income Canada Networkand a participant in the consultations surrounding the pilot, says the debate is central to the experiment in general.

The fact that its stimulated a lot of conversation is one of the most important things about the pilot, she says. This is a really different way of thinking about how we are distributing resources to people.

As part of the program, recipients can keep any child benefits, disability, dental and pharmaceutical access they are already entitled to, but participants receiving Employment Insurance (EI) or Canada Pension Plan (CPP) will have their monthly basic income payment reduced dollar-for-dollar.

According to the province, the $17,000 figure, 75 per cent of the Low Income Measure, was put forth at the advice of Hugh Segal, a former senator, political strategist and longtime proponent of basic income, on the grounds that when other broadly available tax credits and benefits, would provide an income that will meet household costs and average health-related spending.

In an op-ed for the National Post, Segal applauded the program saying Canadas existing welfare programs are far too limited.

In Ontario, for example, a single adult receives payouts equal to about 45 percent of the poverty line, or approximately $9,000, he wrote. Existing programs also include dehumanizing micro-eligibility requirements that dilute self-respect, discourage work, and frustrate hardworking caseworkers they trap people in poverty rather than providing them with a bridge to the economic mainstream.

Regehr echoes Segal, saying that in her discussions with Ontario officials during the consultations, they said they suspect many people will actually get to or very close to 100 per cent whenothertypes of support are taken into account.

I think it is pretty reasonable especially when you compare it to social assistance rates for single people which are abysmal and a complete lack of social protection for people trying to eke out a living with two or three low-income jobs, says Regehr.

But David Wakely, senior partner at management labour and employment law firm, Filion, Wakely, Thorup, Angeletti LLP which works with both public and private sector employers says he isnt convinced the program is a good idea.

Weve got the Manitoba situation and the US experiment and some in Europe but I think a very hard look at the little bit of data we have leads to certain conclusions that I dont think are ambiguous, says Wakely. The disincentive to work has been established and borne out by the experiments.

He says hes concerned employers havent turned their minds to the potential effects of a $17,000 basic income guarantee.

The studies in Manitoba, the U.S. Denver suggest the higher you peg the basic income guarantee, the more the deleterious effect and the more the negative impacts are in terms of offering a disincentive to work, he says pointing that employers will have to raise wages in order to attract candidates who are already receiving a basic income.

Its obvious over the last 20 years, (driving) wages up forces employers to outsource, subcontract, go to automation various factors to try and remain competitive, he says. I think thats an unintended consequence.

While the provincial government has committed $1.5 billion to the three-year experiment, Wakely points out that eventually, if its taken on, its going to need to be subsidized likely by higher taxes on corporations or upper-bracket earners.

Read More

I think is going to have a very harmful effect on the economy in general, he says, adding that hes not convinced its going to get off the ground.

It hasnt gotten off the ground in any place its been experimented with, its just human nature for the payers to say why would I do this, why would I prepared to underwrite this so someone else can make $17,000 for doing nothing? says Wakely. And where people start to perceive the tax system as being unfair it justifies the human instinct to try and beat the system itll turn into Greece thats what I would fear.

Regehr, on the other hand, is optimistic, saying that the pilot will give us a new angle on the ripple effects of a basic income program.

For me and for people in this movement, theres no question that this is the way we have to go in this modern society, she says. We have to the sooner we do it, the sooner we figure out how to do it the better.

See the original post here:

Is $17000 a good enough starting point for basic income? - Yahoo News Canada (blog)

The cost of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is often greatly exaggerated, because people are tempted to think the cost of UBI is the size of the grant multiplied by the size of the population. You can call that the gross cost of UBI, but its a gross overestimate of the real cost of UBI. It fact, its not a cost in any meaningful sense, because UBI is a tax rebate or a refundable tax credit. That is, UBI is a negative tax. People seldom call UBI a negative tax because that would invite confusion with a similar policy formally named The Negative Income Tax.

But in the more important generic sense, UBI isand must be understood asa negative tax. When you pay the government, thats a tax. When the government pays you (without you having sold something to the government), thats a negative tax. It doesnt cost you anything for the government to give and take a dollar from you at the same time. If you want to know someones total tax burden, you need to subtract the negative taxes they receive from the positive taxes they pay.

Far more than any other policy, UBI involves the government take money from in taxes and gives it back to the very same people as a UBI.

A calculation of real redistributive cost of UBI requires subtracting all of that taking-and-giving-back to focus on the net increase in taxes on contributors (or net cuts in other spending) that will be necessary to support the net benefit to net recipients. The redistributive burden is the only real budgetary cost of UBI.

UBIs net cost issue requires a careful explanation because the issue is almost unique to UBI, extremely important, and sometimes difficult to grasp. The issue occurs because UBI is both universal and in cash. Because it is universal, everyone receives it, even net taxpayers. Because it is in cash, people receive the same thing that they pay. Because it is both universal and in cash, people receive the same thing at the same time that they pay for it.

Most transfer payments go to people who are not at the time also paying taxes to support it. For example, almost no one both pays for and receives Unemployment Insurance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, disability insurance, Medicaid, and so at the same time. The vast majority of people pay for Social Security at one time and receive it at another time. The net issue so important to UBI is negligible or nonexistent for all these policies.

About half of U.S. transfer payments are healthcare related and many of these do involve the same people both paying for and receiving benefits at the same time, but they pay in cash and receive back in something very different: health care. We need to know the cost of converting the cash into that healthcare. So the gross cost of healthcare spending is relevant, although we might be interested in its net redistributive effect as well.

UBI is fundamentally different from all of these policies because for the vast majority of people it works like a tax rebate. You pay taxes in cash and receive back cash at the same time. Suppose you buy something for $100, but you instantaneously receive back a rebate of $50. You do not have to budget for that $100. You have to budget for $50. That $50 is the only real cost to you of this policy. If we want to know the budgetary cost of UBI, we have to net out the enormous extent to which it functions as a rebate. Unlike healthcare spending, the gross cost has no budgetary effects at all. There is a limit to how much healthcare the government can provide you even if you are paying all the taxes for it. You only have so much purchasing power. Only so much of it can be converted into healthcare. But there is no limit to how much cash the government can give you as long as it taxes it right back. The government could give every single American $10 billion in cash without increasing pricesas long as it taxes back that $10 billion as soon as it pays it out. We need to get rid of any attention to this meaningless gross cost and focus on the one cost of UBI that matters: its net cost.

Here are some of the many examples of people mistreating the gross cost of UBI as if it were a real cost:

A google search will produce more articles making this error than I can count.

I recently made some simple estimates of the real cost of UBI in an paper entitled, the Cost of Basic Income: Back-of-the-Envelope Calculations. Its currently under peer-review at an academic journal and available in un-reviewed form on my website. I found that a UBI large enough to eliminate poverty costs on $539 billion per yearless than 16% of its often-mentioned but not-very-meaningful gross cost ($3.415 trillion), less than 25% of the cost of current U.S. entitlement spending, less than 15% of overall federal spending, and about 2.95% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

-Cru Coffee House, Beaufort, North Carolina, May 23, 2017

Karl Widerquist has written 878 articles.

Karl Widerquist is an Associate Professor of political philosophy at SFS-Qatar, Georgetown University, specializing in distributive justicethe ethics of who has what. Much of his work involves Universal Basic Income (UBI). He is a co-founder of the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network (USBIG). He served as co-chair of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) for 7 years, and now serves as vice-chair. He was the Editor of the USBIG NewsFlash for 15 years and of the BIEN NewsFlash for 4 years. He is a cofounder of BIENs news website, Basic Income News, the main source of just-the-facts reporting on UBI worldwide. He is a cofounder and editor of the journal Basic Income Studies, the only academic journal devoted to research on UBI. Widerquist has published several books and many articles on UBI both in academic journals and in the popular media. He has appeared on or been quoted by many major media outlets, such asNPRs On Point, NPRs Marketplace,PRIs the World,CNBC,Al-Jazeera,538,Vice,Dissent,the New York Times,Forbes,the Financial Times, andthe Atlantic Monthly, which called him a leader of the worldwide basic income movement. Widerquist holds two doctoratesone in Political Theory form Oxford University (2006) and one in Economics from the City University of New York (1996). He has published seven books, including Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy (Edinburgh University Press 2017, coauthored by Grant S. McCall) and Independence, Propertylessness, and Basic Income: A Theory of Freedom as the Power to Say No (Palgrave Macmillan 2013). He has published more than a twenty scholarly articles and book chapters. Most Karl Widerquists writing is available on his Selected Works website (works.bepress.com/widerquist/). More information about him is available on his BIEN profile and on Wikipedia. He writes the blog "the Indepentarian" for Basic Income News.

Read more:

The BIG misunderstanding about the cost of Universal Basic Income - Basic Income News

The Greens are seen as trying to outflank Labour on the left with a number of their policies. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA

People could get a universal basic income and a shorter working week under plans proposed by the Green party on Monday.

Launching the manifesto, Caroline Lucas, the partys co-leader, said the proposals were big, bold ideas to create a confident and caring country we can all be proud of.

The partys flagship pledges, called their green guarantee, would reverse the privatisation of the NHS and fill the funding gap in the health service, paid for partly by scrapping the UKs Trident nuclear deterrent.

It would also promise another referendum when Britain strikes its Brexit deal and guarantee EU citizens rights.

But its most radical proposals are a promise to work towards the introduction of a universal basic income - a flat rate paid to everyone whether or not they are in work.

A universal basic income is regarded by some on the left as a response to the robotisation of the workforce, which it is feared could replace lower-skilled jobs and exacerbate inequality

The Greens said the proposal would initially take the form of a government-sponsored pilot scheme and the phasing in a of a shorter working week.

Their programme amounts to an attempt to outflank Labour on the left, promising policies that have been explored by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell that did not end up in their manifesto.

McDonnell has expressed an interest in a universal basic income but it was not contained in Labours manifesto. Corbyn is also opposed to renewing Trident but the party is officially committed to the nuclear deterrent.

And with Labour having promised to scrap university tuition fees if elected, the Greens last week went one step further, with a pledge to write off all existing student loan debts, at a cost of more than 14bn over the next parliament.

Lucas, who is seeking re-election in Brighton Pavilion as the UKs only Green MP, said the manifest was about protecting our environment for our children and grandchildren [and] saving our NHS from crisis and ridding it of private sector profiteering.

She added: It means giving people a proper say on the Brexit deal, not shutting them out of the process. And it means exploring changes to our economy to make it fairer and fit for the future.

Jonathan Bartley, who shares the leadership with Lucas, added: By voting Green on 8 June, people can elect MPs who will always fight their corner, and push for the major changes we need to make this country a world leader, rather than the little Britain envisioned by the Tories.

We are unapologetic in fighting to remain close to Europe, and in defending free movement as a wonderful gift to my generation that is being robbed from the next. We will always defend our public services, stand up for our NHS and push for bold changes so our economy delivers on fairness and on pioneering new technology.

Go here to read the rest:

Greens to unveil plans for universal basic income in manifesto launch - The Guardian

Will the numbers from Ontario's Basic Income pilot add up to people being able to lift themselves out of poverty?

By Erin Walters, Health Promoter and Educator at Quest CHC, St. Catharines

Across Ontarios political spectrum, support is growing for a Basic Income Guarantee. The idea isnt a new one: Mincome has roots in the policies of the Manitoba NDP in the 1970s. Now, the concept has backing from a former Canadian senator, a former Canadian bank CEO, the World Economic Forum, and now the Ontario government, which is launching a pilot project in three communities across the province.

The reasons for the growing support are many.

For each of the current provincial and federal income support programs available to Ontarians, conditions are attached, which means that many people fall through the cracks. For those who do qualify for social assistance, the amount of financial support provided makes it hard to live a dignified life. As one of many Health Promoters working in Community Health Centres across Ontario, I witness first-hand the negative effects of these challenges on peoples overall health and wellbeing.

An Ontario Works recipient receives $706 per month, which often isnt nearly enough to cover basic needs such as housing, food, clothing, medications, and transportation. People are forced to make choices about whether to pay the electricity bill or buy a bus pass, or to buy nutritious food or allow their child to attend a class fieldtrip. These are heartbreaking decisions that limit a persons ability to fully participate in life, and ultimately harm their chances of leaving poverty and its ill effects on health -- behind.

With a volatile labour market that has seen a rise in precarious employment and job losses due to automation, more people than ever are struggling to attain income security. Thats why now is the time for changes to Ontarios social assistance system. Can a Basic Income Guarantee be part of the solution?

Basic Income Pilot

Radically re-thinking the way in which social assistance is delivered to the people who need it could be an effective way not only to address shortcomings of the current system, but also might be a way to reduce stigma related to income assistance, encouraging more participation in the labour market and community life overall.

That brings us to Ontarios Basic Income pilot project.

The pilot project will replace the current Ontario Works (OW) program and Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) with one that: provides an adequate amount of income every month to ensure all basic needs are covered; requires less monitoring as money is provided without conditions; and distributes income support automatically without a difficult application process. This income support, which is delivered through a negative income tax model, would be available to individuals whose income falls below a certain threshold, whether or not they are currently receiving OW or ODSP.

On April 24, the provincial government released additional information regarding the design of the pilot project based on feedback from 35,000 people. The pilot will randomly invite individuals 18-64 years of age living on a low income from Hamilton, Brantford, Brant County; Thunder Bay and the surrounding area; and Lindsay to participate in the pilot.

Participants will receive up to $16,989 per year for a single person, or $24,027 per year for a couple. People with a disability will receive an additional $6,000 per year. Importantly, people on social assistance who are chosen to participate wont lose their drug and dental benefits.

Policy Discussions and Concerns

Policy circles have been abuzz since the pilot was first announced in 2016. Countless social policy think tanks, including the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Mowat Centre, and Maytree released reports discussing important considerations about the implementation of a Basic Income program. Other organizations, including AOHC, have released official statements on the topic (AOHCs official statement can be found here in English or French.) And while it remains clear there is broad support for the idea, there are reservations about potential design elements and concerns that the pilot project may postpone other necessary poverty reduction actions, such as raising social assistance rates, increasing the minimum wage, and investing in new affordable housing. Another key question will be whether $16,989 - 75 percent of the Low Income Measure (LIM) - will be enough for individuals to lift themselves above the poverty line.

For now, proponents of poverty reduction and health equity must await the Ontario pilot projects full launch this spring and be prepared to monitor its roll out and progress carefully. Since there are AOHC member centres in Thunder Bay, Hamilton/Brantford and Lindsay, its our hope that well get to see what the benefits can be for a person when a Basic Income Guarantee is combined with the kind of wraparound, interprofessional, team-based services and programs that my colleagues and I deliver across the province every day. While those of us who work on the frontlines of community-governed primary health care know the significance of income as a determinant of health, we also know that the intersection of income and other social determinants such as education, race, gender and sexual orientation, housing or social support can have profound impacts that go well beyond what a boost to income alone can address.

As a Health Promoter, Im optimistic and I look forward to the coming years because I see a Basic Income Guarantee as an incredible opportunity to go from the constant uphill battle of trying to help people beat the odds to attain the best possible health and wellbeing, to permanently changing the odds for all people affected by poverty.

Read more here:

Basic Income Guarantee: Can it be a sustainable solution ...

PostMedia

A new report from the Northern Policy Institute warns that implementation of a basic income guarantee program for Ontario may have unforeseen negative consequences for First Nations communities without pilot-testing, sustained government commitment, and significant engagement with First Nations.

As the province moves ahead with its BIG pilot, NPI has released the first report in its BIG series, Basic Income Guarantee and First Nations: Cautions for Implementation, by Gayle Broad and Jessica Nadjiwon-Smith, who have identified several key areas of concern.

According to Broad and Nadjiwon-Smith, First Nations communities differ substantially from non-Indigenous municipalities, with exceedingly diverse histories, cultures, and contexts including vastly differing geographies, and remote access to urban centres and services. The report adds that Indigenous peoples in Ontario face different challenges in addressing social, economic and health indicators.

Due to complexities facing First Nations, the face of poverty in these communities differs substantially from that in other municipalities and rural communities in Ontario, Broad said in a statement. Because of this, it is unclear whether First Nations will gain the same benefits from a BIG as other communities in the province might.

Beyond unique challenges related to poverty, the report identifies social assistance administration and First Nations autonomy as other factors for consideration, arguing the elimination of local administration could lead to a loss of culturally appropriate service provision and limit the range of services available for First Nations community members.

The report also cautions that Canadian governments historically have underfunded and sometimes undermined programs in First Nations, and questions what evidence supports the likelihood that the implementation of a BIG would be any different.

Broad and Nadjiwon-Smith conclude these concerns may only be definitively answered through pilot-site testing, with a comprehensive evaluation component attached, and proper discussion and engagement with First Nations, cautioning such a commitment should not be extended and then withdrawn.

Implementing a basic income guarantee in communities that differ so much from other Ontario municipalities requires thoughtful consideration and a great deal of insight that can only be provided through meaningful engagement with First Nations communities themselves, Broad said.

The paper is the first of a series that will explore the various topics presented at NPIs Basic Income Guarantee conference in October 2016. Report topics include food security issues, potential models for a BIG pilot, tax implications, and the potential impact on social innovators.

To view presentations from the NPIs BIG conference and explore comments and feedback from participants, visit http://www.northernpolicy.ca/big.

Go here to see the original:

Income guarantee program must include First Nations: Report - The North Bay Nugget

A new report from the Northern Policy Institute warns that implementation of a basic income guarantee program for Ontario may have unforeseen negative consequences for First Nations communities without pilot-testing, sustained government commitment, and significant engagement with First Nations.

As the province moves ahead with its BIG pilot, NPI has released the first report in its BIG series, Basic Income Guarantee and First Nations: Cautions for Implementation, by Dr. Gayle Broad and Jessica Nadjiwon-Smith, who have identified several key areas of concern.

According to Broad and Nadjiwon-Smith, First Nations communities differ substantially from non-Indigenous municipalities, with exceedingly diverse histories, cultures, and contexts including vastly differing geographies, and remote access to urban centres and services. The report adds that Indigenous peoples in Ontario face different challenges in addressing social, economic and health indicators.

Due to complexities facing First Nations, the face of poverty in these communities differs substantially from that in other municipalities and rural communities in Ontario, Broad said in a prepared statement. Because of this, it is unclear whether First Nations will gain the same benefits from a BIG as other communities in the province might.

Beyond unique challenges related to poverty, the report identifies social assistance administration and First Nations autonomy as other factors for consideration, arguing the elimination of local administration could lead to a loss of culturally appropriate service provision and limit the range of services available for First Nations community members.

The report also cautions that Canadian governments historically have underfunded and sometimes undermined programs in First Nations, and questions what evidence supports the likelihood that the implementation of a BIG would be any different.

Broad and Nadjiwon-Smith conclude that these concerns may only be definitively answered through pilot-site testing, with a comprehensive evaluation component attached, and proper discussion and engagement with First Nations, cautioning such a commitment should not be extended and then withdrawn.

Implementing a basic income guarantee in communities that differ so much from other Ontario municipalities requires thoughtful consideration and a great deal of insight that can only be provided through meaningful engagement with First Nations communities themselves, Broad said.

The paper is the first of a series that will explore the various topics presented at NPIs Basic Income Guarantee conference in October 2016. Report topics include food security issues, potential models for a BIG pilot, tax implications, and the potential impact on social innovators.

To view presentations from the NPIs BIG conference and explore comments and feedback from participants, visit http://www.northernpolicy.ca/big.

sud.editorial@sunmedia.ca

See original here:

NPI report asks if income guarantee will benefit First Nations - The Sudbury Star

THUNDER BAY As Ontario moves ahead with the implementation of a Basic Income Guarantee (B.IG.) pilot, it will be critical to consider how this type of program will impact First Nations communities.

The first report of Northern Policy Institutes B.I.G. series, Basic Income Guarantee and First Nations: Cautions for Implementation, by Dr. Gayle Broad and Jessica Nadjiwon-Smith, identifies key areas of concern, citing that without pilot-testing, sustained government commitment, and significant engagement with First Nations, the implementation of a B.I.G. may have unforeseen negative consequences for communities already experiencing the highest rates of poverty in the province.

According to Broad and Nadjiwon-Smith, First Nations communities differ substantially from non-Indigenous municipalities, with exceedingly diverse histories, cultures, and contexts including vastly differing geographies, and remote access to urban centres and services. The report adds that Indigenous peoples in Ontario face different challenges in addressing social, economic and health indicators.

Due to complexities facing First Nations, the face of poverty in these communities differs substantially from that in other municipalities and rural communities in Ontario, states Dr. Broad. Because of this, it is unclear whether First Nations will gain the same benefits from a B.I.G, as other communities in the province might.

Beyond unique challenges related to poverty, the report identifies social assistance administration and First Nations autonomy as other factors for consideration, arguing the elimination of local administration could lead to a loss of culturally appropriate service provision and limit the range of services available for First Nations community members.

Furthermore, the report cautions that Canadian governments historically have underfunded and sometimes undermined programs in First Nations, and questions what evidence supports the likelihood that the implementation of a B.I.G. would be any different.

Broad and Nadjiwon-Smith conclude that these concerns may only be definitively answered through pilot site(s) testing with a comprehensive evaluation component attached, and proper discussion and engagement with First Nations, cautioning such a commitment should not be extended and then withdrawn, as governments have done in the past.

Implementing a basic income guarantee in communities that differ so much from other Ontario municipalities requires thoughtful consideration and a great deal of insight that can only be provided through meaningful engagement with First Nations communities themselves, concludes Broad.

This paper is the first of a series that will explore the various topics presented at NPIs Basic Income Guarantee conference in October, 2016. Report topics include food security issues, potential models for a B.I.G. pilot, tax implications, and the potential impact on social innovators.

To view presentations from the NPIs BIG conference and explore comments and feedback from participants, visit http://www.northernpolicy.ca/big

To view the report, visit http://www.northernpolicy.ca/bigandfirstnations

THUNDER BAY Josiah Beggs mother, Sunshine Winter, is attempting to reach out to...

WASHINGTON The Inauguration of the 45th President of the United States, Donald John...

Read the rest here:

Looking at Basic Income Guarantee and First Nations - Net Newsledger