Response to Jeremy Dias

This post is in response to a video question from Jeremy Dias (video at the bottom).

Hi Jeremy,

Thank you for your questions. You brought up some very valid points, that I will do my best to address one by one here.

First, adjusting the guaranteed annual income payment dependent on location. There are several reasons I am opposed to this. One, it makes the system a lot more complex and takes away from the idea that the $7500 is not need-based. You would need to set up an administrative board to oversee the different payment levels. Furthermore, even within Toronto for example, there would have to be adjustments, because living right downtown costs more than living just a few kilometres away. Secondly, it’s unnecessary. The $7500 is not designed to be a livable income, but rather, when combined with minimal work effort, it should become a livable income (that’s why I have said that disability assistance and similar programs should be kept). Areas with higher costs of living tend to have better access to jobs. In Northern Ontario for example, yes it’s easier to live off $7500, but it’s also harder to find well-paying year-round work, so the two factors balance out. I don’t want to go into great detail here, but this system would also work especially well in the Atlantic Provinces. The Maritimes have a lot of season employment and the current system of welfare and EI creates a quite a few problems. This guaranteed income would bring a lot more financial stability to people living in the area.

Second, you mentioned the fact that the 24% is too high for low income earners. I have addressed this issue before with other candidates, and in my community video. Basically, the $7500 (which is a fixed sum) and the 24% in the other direction work against each other to create a proportional tax system that’s proportional at all levels of income. To a low income earner, getting $7500 from the government far outweighs paying an income tax rate of 24% (in fact for everyone earning less than $31 250 of income, the $7500 payment is more than their tax burden at 24%). The reason why I chose to not have a graduated system is because of simplicity, better forecasts of revenue generation and compliance. For both of these points that I just made, I would direct you to my community event video, where I explain these in a slightly different way (at 2:07 – the progressive aspect, 3:42 – flat taxes).

Third, on foreign aid. Here’s where we seem to completely agree, but I may have been a bit unclear in my initial video. My idea was not to send them Canadian goods, but Canadian machinery. So, instead of us sending them corn for example, we would send them machinery to help them develop a sustainable agriculture industry. I don’t think I need to convince you on the benefits of this, cause it seems to be exactly what you are saying as well. I’m glad we agree!

Hope that addressed your concerns,

Tani

Jeremy’s Original Video Question