Wouldn’t it be nice to have a guaranteed annual income?

That means that even if you don’t work a day all year, you still have enough money to pay for the basics.

Many people object to that idea, but some countries have decided it is better than a welfare system.

Actually it is better, but unlikely to work in Canada.

Finland is considering giving every citizen a tax-free payout of €800 ($1,223 Canadian) each month.

This national basic income would be paid to all adults, regardless of whether they receive any other income.

But here is the kicker; the money would replace all other government benefit programs.

It is hard to believe that in Canada public sector unions and politicians would agree to shut down the massive welfare bureaucracy already in place.

The main argument against a guaranteed income is that some people would not even try to work.

But we already have those people and we are providing welfare to them.

The advantage of a guaranteed annual income is that it is a true basic income.

It allows a person to add to it from a part-time job or a low-paying full-time one, growing their income with no penalty or clawbacks, as happens now with too many welfare programs.

In that case, we should expect it to decrease the number of homeless and destitute.

True, some people will not be able to work because they have mental or physical health issues, or drug or alcohol dependency problems.

But again, we have those situations now.

However, for a guaranteed income plan to benefit taxpayers, as well as the unemployed, our social welfare safety net would have to be folded up and put away.

That would mean selling off social housing, closing welfare offices, ending low-income assistance and unemployment benefits.

Special financial assistance to seniors, aboriginals and to families with children would also end.

Conservatives such as Milton Friedman, Richard Nixon and Bob Stanfield believed in the concept of a guaranteed annual income because of the staggering amount of money governments spend on social welfare programs.

Far too much of it, they believed, was used to feed government bureaucracies rather than people in need of support.

A negative income tax, which is what Friedman proposed, would see no tax on the base amount.

Anyone earning less than that would get a top up from the government.

Since we already have the Canada Revenue Agency closely monitoring our income, that department could handle the whole thing.

With so many people on the left and right claiming to want to end poverty and unemployment, this idea should have gone further towards implementation than it has.

Why hasn’t it?

If the people who work in the government departments listed above really believe the goal is to move people out of social housing, off welfare and into employment, they’d support this idea and be proud to move on to some other more useful form of employment.

If the goal on reserves is to have native people achieve self-determination, with proper schooling and clean drinking water, let’s take the huge payments each reserve receives out of the hands of the chiefs — some of whom have been documented spending it on themselves — and put it into the hands of each and every adult.

Then again, what are the chances that real social progress is in fact what unionized government workers want?

— Agar hosts the 9 a.m. to noon show on Newstalk1010