Senator urges debate on plight of poor - TheStar.com19 February 2008
I hadn't really thought about this before but it makes sense to me. And at the same time we could deal with the massive EI surplus that we have by using that for the guaranteed annual income until it ran out and then normal taxes would fund this; they could even take a bit more because it would eliminate EI premiums.
This guaranteed annual income could be brought in at the same time as a new income tax system, which would be simpler. Why do we need hundreds, if not thousands of deductions? We "need" them because Joe needed to make his Atlantic constituents happy and Pete needed to keep his Pacifics happy and Pierre his Quebec and Dave his Ontario and Ralph his prairie constituents happy. So in reality we don't need them. It is not necessary to deduct small credits for this and that and the other when everybody has enough to survive.
We already do this for those over 65 and some of them prefer to keep living their more expensive life with investment and working income even though they have to give back part or all of what their guaranteed income. So to those who believe this is a disincentive to work, perish the though because similar schemes exist and many of those eligible do not up and quit what they are doing to get a little when they can keep doing what they like and keep getting more.
It is unfortunate that at this moment in time our politicians are in a race to the bottom in trying to be less charismatic and less relevant. Making claims that they will or will not protect the environment or support the military doesn't amount to anything in my or anyone else in the country's day-to-day lives, but concrete ideas like guaranteed annual income, funding arts properly or maintaining and enriching the Canadian-ness of Canadian broadcasting.
Perhaps we should start a new party that embraces the needs of all Canadians. Any questions, comments (agreement or dissent) are welcomed.