Canada wealth distribution: The good, the bad and the ugly

This chart is from The Wealth Gap: Perceptions and Misconceptions in Canada, a report by the Broadbent Institute.

People don't know how rich is the rich and how poor is the poor.

For a comparison with the distribution in USA, see this:
People plainly do not know how unequal their society is. USA. Singapore

Return our Citizen Dividend. "People need to quit demanding jobs and start demanding justice."

Why you have the right to a $5K dividend from Uncle Sam | Making Sen$e | PBS NewsHour: (Aug 27, 2014)

This post on citizen dividend has quite a few gems.

"Dividends from common wealth, by contrast, unite society by putting all its members in the same boat. The income everyone receives is a right, not a handout. This changes the story, the psychology and the politics."

"A national dividend system would be simple, fair and immensely popular. It would rest on the principle of shared ownership, not redistribution. Once set up, it would be market-based rather than tax-funded. And it could gain support across the political spectrum: conservatives from Sarah Palin to Bill O’Reilly have lauded Alaska’s dividends."

"Our times demand a reliable flow of supplementary income as well. The best way to provide that is to pay dividends to everyone from wealth that’s logically ours."

From progress.org (Aug 28, 2014), on the above post about citizen dividend:

"What’s needed is for regular people to feel enough self-esteem to demand a fair share of what’s already ours just like the rich feel when winning an enormous share of what’s not theirs. We’re not broke. There is a surplus. It just needs to be shared. People need to quit demanding jobs and start demanding justice."

When will more people around the world be more like Alaskans, demanding their share of their own state's resources?

When will the Alaskans be more Alaskan, demanding a better share of their own state's resources? They only get a quarter of what the state gets from the oil companies, which is a small fraction of the oil wealth. I think Alaskans get less than 10% of their oil wealth in citizen dividends.

Canada First Nations well placed for a big citizen dividend

"The Supreme Court of Canada this week ruled in favour of the Tsilhqot’in and declared the
group holds aboriginal title to about 2,000 square kilometres of interior B.C."

“The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected this idea that aboriginal title just applies to specific sites, or rocks or buffalo jumps or fishing holes – it is territorial,” David Rosenberg, one of the lawyers involved in the case, said in Vancouver on Thursday.

“It goes from mountaintop to mountaintop in some places. It covers valleys and vast tracts of land. That is now what aboriginal title is.”

(Theglobeandmail, June 27, 2014)

The First Nations now has clear ownership of vast tracts of land in Canada. 

Regional chief of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations Jody Wilson-Raybould

“I see this decision as providing required clarity and the rules of the game,” said Jody Wilson-Raybould, regional chief of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations. “I think it’s an opportunity. First Nations want to be a part of resource development where resource development will benefit them and won’t infringe on their lands.” (Straight.com, July 2, 2014)

The Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation in the USA gives out very substantial citizen dividends of about US$6,000 each annually. If the Canada First Nations follow this example and distribute citizen dividends, the First Nations peoples are going to get big citizen dividends. They own very valuable natural  resources.

Oil for Uganda - or Ugandans? Oil for your country or for you?

Oil for Uganda - or Ugandans?

Oil for Uganda - or Ugandans?

This is the profound title of a report, by Alan Gelb and Stephanie Majerowicz from the Center for Global Development, looking at citizen dividend for Ugandans, from their oil resource. It is a question that every citizen in every country should be asking. Oil for your country or for you?

The basic question is whether the oil revenue gets confiscated by the government or it gets distributed to its citizen owners.

The report asks the most fundamental question about citizen ownership of his/her country:

"The national patrimony of a country—including historical, cultural, and natural resource wealth—belongs almost by definition to each and every citizen. Why should oil or natural gas resources extracted from Nigerian or Iraqi or Ugandan soil automatically end up as public resources to be used – or abused – as determined by the government of the day?" 

The report recommends a citizen dividend, and at the same time opines that it may be hard to find enlightened politicians who are willing to support a citizen dividend.

"Ultimately, distribution of the oil rents therefore can be considered as a way to mitigate the risk that Uganda will succumb to the resource curse. This, coupled with the benefits of the cash itself in reducing poverty, and the possibilities of building up a tax system that can produce a more accountable delivery of public services (including the much needed infrastructure)  suggests that cash transfers are an option worth considering in the Ugandan context, even though finding politicians willing to adopt such a policy may prove impossible." 

Citizens around the world will just have to look harder to find politicians willing to champion a citizen dividend. There are quite a number around. The most recent example is Justin Trudeau from the Liberal Party of Canada.

Will the Liberal Party endow Canadians with an unconditional basic income?

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau votes during the party's biennial convention in Montreal on Feb. 23, 2014.
Delegates endorsed the principle of a basic annual income. (From thestar)

"Forget everything else, we just want a basic income." 

The choice is now up to the Canadian voters.

The photo is from 

How can we not afford a ‘basic annual income’?

What is most needed now in Canada is a basic income guarantee for working-age adults.

The BIG Push of Basic Income Canada Network

Hot on the heels of the Swiss Basic Income Initiative and the EU Basic Income Initiative, Canada is starting a BIG push for basic income.

It's fantastic that the campaign for an unconditional basic income is spreading around the world. This is like the universal suffrage, which spread across the world. Universal suffrage brings political voting power to the people. Universal basic income will bring economic power to the people.

A true democracy has to give the people both political and economic powers.

The BIG Push of Basic Income Canada Network
"January 13: The BIG Push campaign plan: available now
On January 9th, 2014 the Board of Directors of Basic Income Canada Network approved the inaugural campaign plan for The BIG Push. The plan identifies 46 tactics supporting the three external campaign goals and three internal goals concerning team building, communications and fundraising. Go to Current Work to access the plan with one more click!"
 

Pensions in OECD and G20 Countries, and Singapore

OECD (2011), Pensions at a Glance 2011: Retirement-income Systems in OECD and G20 Countries, OECD Publishing.
doi: 10.1787/pension_glance-2011-en

This is a highly informative report about what old people are getting, in many countries.

This is highly recommended reading for Singaporeans.

Examples from the report 

Australia. In 2008, the very poor receives an annual state pension of AUD 14,313. This is not from employment pension.

Canada. In 2008, the very poor receives an annual state pension of CAD $13,759. This is not from employment pension.

Singapore (not in the OECD report). The very poor receives an annual state pension of S$0.00.

Old people do get their citizen ownership dividend, in some countries.

Respecting our old. Canada. Singapore.

Old Singaporean. From rogerpoh.

Canada gives every old Canadian $540 a month plus an additional $745 a month if he or she has a low income. That is $1,280 a month or $15,360 a year. This is on top of any work related pension.

This is really respecting the old. It is a basic income guarantee for old people.

In Singapore, the old age pension for a Singaporean is . . . let's not talk about it.

(If you are interested, you can read rogerpoh.)

The Town with No Poverty II: An Interview with Evelyn Forget

Professor Evelyn Forget

A Way to Get Healthy: Basic Income Experiments in Canada

The above is an interview with Evelyn Forget, who studied the outcome of a basic income experiment in Dauphin, Manitoba, Canada. An extract from there:

"I am heartened by the fact that many of the best changes we’ve made in social assistance over time have looked much like guaranteed income, although they focused only on small groups in the population. In Canada, low income seniors receive a Guaranteed income supplement which is like a guaranteed income for old people. People with dependent children receive a national child benefit, which is like a guaranteed income for people with dependent children. Neither of these are as large as they should be, but they exist. I think the next step is to look at a guaranteed income for the rest of us."

See also:

The Town with No Poverty: Dauphin, Manitoba, Canada.

Pay me because you make me suffer. Carbon Tax and Car ownership.

A citizen-ownership democracy works on the foundation that citizens are owners of their country, and therefore any wealth generated from common properties belongs to them and should be distributed equally among them. Pay me because I am a co-owner of this country.

Another reason for paying citizens/residents is that they have suffered from certain actions. There is a lot of legal and moral justification for a sufferer to get compensation from those who make him suffer. One example is the carbon tax.

Citizens Climate Lobby pushes for a carbon tax and dividend
Citizens Climate Lobby aims to organize the public to create pressure behind a carbon fee and dividend system

CCL pushes specifically for a carbon fee and dividend, which taxes carbon emissions, collects and divides up that revenue, and gives 100% of it back to citizens. Most people get the same or more money back as dividends as they pay in higher energy prices, but they would make even more money by using less fossil fuel energy.

A carbon fee and dividend system has been implemented in British Columbia since 2008 with great success – the economy is doing well, emissions are down, and citizens have seen no net increase in taxes.

Another example is the money from car ownership certificates in Singapore. A potential car owner has to bid for a certificate of entitlement before he can register a car. A certificate of entitlement recently goes for almost S$100,000 (about US$80,000). This excludes the cost of the car itself.

From the citizen ownership angle, citizens own the road space which is used by car owners. Hence the money from certificates of entitlement is wealth generated from common properties. It should be distributed equally to all citizens. This works out to more than S$500 per citizen per year.

From the suffering angle, the certificate of entitlement system serves to keep car ownership among the rich and well off. The poor are pushed to take the very crowded and inconvenient public transportation system. The money from certificates of entitlement should be distributed to citizens to compensate them for their suffering. $500 per year could mean about half a year of free public transportation.

From either perspective, money from certificates of entitlement should be distributed to citizens.

Let’s run Singapore like SGP Pte Ltd. An analysis.

Let’s run Singapore like SGP Pte Ltd (Todayonline, or Tremeritus) by CHARLES TAN MEAH YANG 08 JUNE

The above is an article that proposes the running of Singapore like a company.

Here are a few main points.

• "Unlike a corporation, every citizen is limited to one share and one vote, neither of which can be sold or traded because unlike normal commodities, they are inalienable."
• Distribute annual dividend. "The amount distributed would depend on certain factors such as our primary surplus the previous year and the returns generated from our sovereign wealth funds, in much the same way that corporate dividends are constrained by profitability."

On first look, this proposal looks similar to the idea of a citizen-ownership democracy. Under both systems, citizens get annual dividends. However, the foundation for the dividend is very different. The results can and likely would be very different.

The citizen-ownership democracy rests on the universally accepted understanding that citizens are owners of their country. This is proclaimed by every leader. The country's common wealth belongs to its citizen. In a citizen ownership democracy, revenues derived from the common wealth get distributed directly to their citizen owners equally.

The SGP Pte Ltd proposal defines dividend as profit from the country's budget, i.e. the budget surplus. 

A country can have a huge common wealth revenue and yet can be short of budget. The relationship between common wealth revenue and budget surplus depends on many other events. For example, a government not keen on declaring a budget surplus can declare a contingency fund, similar to companies preparing for bad loans, or they can simply spend away the potential surplus. 

Revenues from clearly defined sources are not easy to manipulate. Profit is easily manipulated.

There are good examples in the world. The Alaska Permanent Fund is a clear dividend system based on revenue from Alaska's common wealth. It is doing well, with every resident in Alaska enjoying their yearly dividend. The Alberta Heritage Fund is the bad example. Politicians are allowed to use the fund for operating purposes. This is similar to the profit sharing dividend. With no profit (surplus), there is no dividend. The Heritage Fund is basically dead, and Albertans are not getting any dividend.

A Canada without poor people

Barbara Yaffe: A guaranteed income for Canadians would eliminate poverty:

"While a Canada without poor people may sound like a pipe dream, in fact it is an achievable goal."

Similarly, a Singapore without poor people is an achievable goal. It is achievable right now, not 10 or 20 years later. If only the politicians are motivated enough.

Dream of Paradise in Singapore

The Town with No Poverty: Dauphin, Manitoba, Canada.

From here
Dauphin, Manitoba, Canada

Population Change and the Lifecourse:
The Town with No Poverty: Health Effects of Guaranteed Annual Income 

This is the untold story of "Dauphin, a rural Manitoba town" and a guaranteed annual income (GAI) experiment in the 1970's by the Canadian government. The results have hardly been analysed. This is from an analysis about health effects.

"We see a larger impact of a GAI on Dauphin than expected, because even though not all families qualified for a supplement, the impacts of the GAI extended beyond qualifying families. This is due to social interaction: changes in behaviour of those who receive the supplement influence those who do not, reinforcing the direct effects of the GAI. A good example of this effect is the influence of grade 11 students on their peers to continue education.


The most suggestive result of this study is the fall of hospitalization rates by 8.5 percent in Dauphin relative to the comparison group, specifically, a reduction in hospitalization rates for accidents, injuries, and mental health problems. Considering that in 2010, Canada spent $55 billion on hospital costs--8.5 percent of which is about $4.6 billion-- these potentially immense savings make a GAI worthy of policy consideration."

Public service impartiality: what it is and why it matters

Public service impartiality: what it is and why it matters.

This is an excellent explanation provided by the Public Service Commission of Canada.

Among the listed dangers of a partisan civil service are the following.

1. Services to the public being influenced by partisan considerations (either delivery is aligned to a political ideology, or service is denied or varied, depending on the partisan history of the citizen);

     This is what happened in USA tax office.

2. Protracted periods of turmoil during government transitions as large numbers of public servants are replaced;

     This is what happens in Singapore Town Councils. Not only civil servants are replaced. Even computer software is replaced. 

3. Fewer checks and balances, with the principle of good government taking second place to partisan considerations; 

    This is what happens in Singapore Town Councils. From the Town Council Review Report 2013:

Latitude has always been given to TCs to exercise autonomy, where they see fit, in engaging those who share their political agenda or are affiliated to their parties.

4. Elections and, by extension, democracy being greatly influenced by a governing party being able to call on the assistance of a partisan public service during campaigns.

5. Constant suspicion about the legitimacy of purchasing and contracting practices.

A good citizen-ownership democracy needs a good democracy as the foundation.

B.C. Liberals defy odds to win British Columbia election

From www.vancouversun.com
The new Premier of British Columbia, May 2013

B.C. Liberals defy odds to win British Columbia election: Premier's party projected to win over the NDP

British Columbians have voted for their Prosperity Fund, a fund from LNG money proposed by Christy Clark of the B.C. Liberals party. But the question remains whether this fund will ever pay any citizen dividend. For comparison, the Alaska Permanent Fund from oil revenue has been paying citizen dividend for more than 3 decades.

The BC Liberals and British Columbians should read this:
B.C. Prosperity Fund Good Idea If Properly Designed

BC residents not likely to get their citizen dividend.

Residents in British Columbia, Canada, are unlikely to see a citizen dividend.

The BC Liberals who propose the prosperity fund have not been very clear on what to do with it. There is no indication it will be a citizen dividend fund, like the Alaska Permanent Fund.

Instead, the prosperity fund will be used to pay government debt. As more debt will definitely be created by future politicians, this could empty the prosperity fund, just like what happened to the Heritage Fund.

There is some unspecified guarantee for future residents.

"Create the BC Prosperity Fund to capture LNG and proposed Kitimat Clean refinery royalty revenues, and dedicate all revenues to debt reduction until provincial debt is eliminated.

Enact legislation to protect the BC Prosperity Fund from becoming a 'cash-cow' for wasterful and desperate government spending."

The description is more like the Singapore reserve instead of the Alaska Permanent Fund. The Singapore reserve is also kept perpetually for a future Singapore.

For BC residents, the prosperity fund may not even be created if the BC Liberals lose the election this month.

Politician, businessman and Citizen III

Citizens suffer under crony capitalism.
Everyone knows.

"First Nations that are prepared to depoliticize their business decisions are able to deliver better economic outcomes than are those with poor administration."

From: Higher Performing First Nations Separate Business and Politics

Speech from the Throne. Will British Columbians get annual citizen dividends?

An important event happens in British Columbia, Canada. They are using royalty revenues to set up a BC Prosperity Fund.

The crucial concern is whether the BC Prosperity Fund will be squandered away as in Alberta's Heritage Fund or it will be protected and distributed to residents as in Alaska's Permanent Fund.

The Prosperity Fund is expected to get $100 billion over the next 30 years. British Columbia has a population of about 4 million. If the Prosperity Fund's investment return is distributed to residents, the amount can be quite substantial. Assuming a return of 5%,  the amount could be about $1000 annually for each resident. This is close to what Alaskans have been receiving every year over the last 3 decades.

Extracts from "Speech from the Throne" are shown below.

Speech from the Throne | 5th Session | 39th Parliament | Legislative Assembly of British Columbia: (Feb 2013)

The second stream of revenue comes from new royalty revenues directly for the province – British Columbia's share of resource profits. This could exceed one hundred billion dollars over the next 30 years.

This resource belongs to the people of British Columbia, both here today and those to follow. It must be spent wisely – not just for the benefit of today's citizens but also for our children and grandchildren.

To protect this second stream of revenue for generations to come, your government is establishing the British Columbia Prosperity Fund.

Future royalties will be designated to this fund, ensuring British Columbia families can benefit from the prosperity created by natural gas in our province.

This will be a transformational change for our province and we cannot afford to be short-sighted.

Protecting the British Columbia Prosperity Fund

Your government will stand up for British Columbia for generations to come.

Earlier I spoke about the British Columbia Prosperity Fund. Your government is committed to ensuring the B.C. Prosperity Fund remains an endowment for future generations.

Your government is resolute that the Prosperity Fund cannot become a backstop or excuse for poor fiscal management of government.

The B.C. Prosperity Fund belongs to the people of this province, and it will be protected for them.

Rich baby. Poor baby. Singapore.

Government releases new measures to promote marriage and parenthood.

Having blogged a few times comparing baby allowances in Singapore and Canada, it is good to see that the Singapore government has increased its baby bonus. For comparison, Canada gives a poor baby more than C$80,000 in direct cash. Rich babies in Canada get less.

How to claim a million dollars in Singapore?
Singapore is a welfare state
Building families with bricks, not straw | publichouse.sg
Singapore: Rich babies get more welfare than poor babies
Grace Fu and child benefits
Canada is a citizen-ownership democracy. Almost

Main points of the new baby bonus package, for a family with 2 kids.
1. Rich parents enjoy $99,000 in cash, co-savings, tax savings, subsidies and about 16 months of paid leave. The paid leave could be worth $100,000s or $1,000,000s, depending on the parents' salaries.
2. Poor parents enjoy $12,000 in cash and $6,000 in CPF grant.
3. The Singapore government continues with its mindset that the rich should get more welfare than the poor.


Calculations for the new baby bonus package

In the new enhanced baby bonus package, 2 babies & parents will receive
$12000 cash
$12000 is co-savings (the parents must come up with another $12,000 for a special co-savings account)
$6000 in Medisave grants (to be locked up and used for special medical charges)
$16,000 in tax savings (provided the parents are paying this amount of tax)
$53,000 in infant care and child care subsides (the parents need to spend two or three times this amount in order to "enjoy" these subsidies)
4 months paid maternity leave per child
1 week paid paternity leave per child
6 days paid child care leave per yer per until until children reach 7, 2 days thereafter until children reach 12
The $ value for these leaves is estimated at about $67,000, leading to a grand total of $166,000.

Total leave per child= 4 months + 1 week + (6 days * 2* 7 + 2 days * 2 *5) = about 8 months

On the other end, if the mother prefers to stay at home to take care of her children, has no money for co-savings, and has no money for childcare (current rates are $1000 a month for each child), all she will get from this new baby bonus package will be
$12,000 cash and
$6,000 in Medisave grant (locked up in CPF)


Interesting blogs about this topic

~Mamamie's Thots~: Baby Bonus Increment: Yay or Nay?

"I felt that we should know our limits & abilities to plan how many kids we are able to have & not because of some short-term benefits to entice us to have more. "

The great Singaporean baby blues
"When we are hopeful and not afraid to face the future. We will always strive to have children. That is really the nature of humans. 

Baby Bonus Signals
"Why not just make child care free?"

When the govt starts to throw money…
"The unequal distribution of the country’s wealth could become unacceptable and a big problem when some recipients are deemed as undeserving of the handouts or should not benefit fully from such programmes." 

Babies, babies, babies!
"There are just too many wrongs to put this fertility rate problem right."

Not Just Babies; Kids Too

"I’ll question why these measures are only for new babies. What about parents with young babies right now?"

Using Children as Collaterals for HDB Flat Priority
"Overnight, lines are drawn for those who have kids, kids coming, and yet to be married couples. Divide and conquer comes to mind."

Baby Bonus
"But more often than not, it has proven that getting pregnant is a career self-destruction path."


Rich get $8.2b procreation tax benefits vs $2b procreation benefits?
"Why not just give the same benefits to parents, regardless of their income?"

Ending Poverty: A Basic Income for All Canadians

This is a book about Basic Income. By Francois Blais (Author). Jennifer Hutchison (Translator)

Notable quotes from the book:

"The .. thing that I would like this book to change for readers is how they perceive poverty and exclusion. These social problems should not be considered as part and parcel of the human condition. In fact, they are primarily caused by inadequate economic and social arrangements in which we have the power to intervene."

"Implementing a Basic Income could be one of the ideals that are noticeably absent today. It is a simple yet radical idea for changing our world and allowing a better life for those who truly need it."

Since citizens are owners of their country, citizen-ownership income is a right. When citizen-ownership income is seen as a right, deprivation of citizen-ownership income creates poverty. In many countries, such as Singapore or Kuwait, the citizen-ownership income is enough to bring every citizen above the poverty line. It becomes very clear that poverty in such countries is caused by inadequate political arrangement.