Article content continued

Far from replacing the welfare state, which was Friedman’s first goal, Ontario’s proposal fed the beast more money and people

A few years back former premier Kathleen Wynne set up a pilot project of several thousand Ontarians to test out the idea. Well, half the idea — the part about free money.

Compared to the current system, single recipients without kids would get twice the money — $17,000/year instead of the current $8,700.

Taxpayers would pay over triple the cost — a total of $28 billion (based on data from the Parliamentary Budget Officer) versus the $7.5 billion cost of current welfare and disability payments.

For all the talk about ground-breaking social policy, there was nothing new in this proposal other than giving more money to more people. Sure, welfare and disability income assistance would get a new name, the “Guaranteed Basic Income”, but the proposal would not replace a single program, bureaucrat, or strand of red tape. Far from replacing the welfare state, which was Friedman’s first goal, Ontario’s proposal fed the beast more money and people.

That is the fraudulent fairy tale of the welfare state: It promises pay without work, but delivers work without pay

What about removing penalties for working? Ask University of British Columbia economist, Kevin Milligan, a former member of the federal Liberal Economic Advisory Council. “The Ontario plan stacks a 50 per cent phase out rate on top of the existing 20 per cent income tax rate on low earners. If you add in CPP and EI payroll taxes and the phase out of income-tested child benefits, we could see Basic Income recipients retain only 10 cents on a dollar of earnings,” he wrote.

Not only would it punish work of recipients, Wynne’s plan would punish taxpayers funding it: “Ontario would need to add at least five points to its HST to raise that kind of revenue [to pay for it],” wrote Milligan.