"So 25 years later, the debate seems to be in the same place."
This is part of the grounds John Stapleton used to put forward an alternative based on the programs we currently have for seniors in his Income Security for Working-Age Adults (http://www.metcalffoundation.com/downloads/Income Support For Adults November 08.pdf): "If that is the basic 'DNA' for successful income security programs in Canada, should we not think twice before we attempt to create something entirely new and untested, such as a Guaranteed Annual Income program for all Canadians? ... This model could be more effective than trying to restore tax and welfare benefits to earlier levels – a politically unpopular strategy. [It] may also be more politically realistic than the one-size-fits-all idea of a Guaranteed
Annual Income."
I'm torn between the two: Do we try to build a compromise with a reasonable level of benefits and a model that's more attractive to the majority of people? Or do we try to shift the debate so that the (seemingly) more efficient and - by John's own account - more politically secure guaranteed annual income is a real possibility? With the social assistance review coming up, perhaps we put the idea of a GAI on the table as the ultimate goal, but also point out intermediate steps and other ways the province could tackle the issues. Whatever it is, though, it has to 1) Raise base rates and 2) Reduce METRs. I just don't know how to accomplish the latter without a GAI.
"So 25 years later, the debate seems to be in the same place."
This is part of the grounds John Stapleton used to put forward an alternative based on the programs we currently have for seniors in his Income Security for Working-Age Adults (http://www.metcalffoundation.com/downloads/Income Support For Adults November 08.pdf): "If that is the basic 'DNA' for successful income security programs in Canada, should we not think twice before we attempt to create something entirely new and untested, such as a Guaranteed Annual Income program for all Canadians? ... This model could be more effective than trying to restore tax and welfare benefits to earlier levels – a politically unpopular strategy. [It] may also be more politically realistic than the one-size-fits-all idea of a Guaranteed
Annual Income."
I'm torn between the two: Do we try to build a compromise with a reasonable level of benefits and a model that's more attractive to the majority of people? Or do we try to shift the debate so that the (seemingly) more efficient and - by John's own account - more politically secure guaranteed annual income is a real possibility? With the social assistance review coming up, perhaps we put the idea of a GAI on the table as the ultimate goal, but also point out intermediate steps and other ways the province could tackle the issues. Whatever it is, though, it has to 1) Raise base rates and 2) Reduce METRs. I just don't know how to accomplish the latter without a GAI.
Many thanks for your work on this, Chandra.