Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • Report looks at captured nature of BC’s Oil and Gas Commission August 6, 2019
    From an early stage, BC’s Oil and Gas Commission bore the hallmarks of a captured regulator. The very industry that the Commission was formed to regulate had a significant hand in its creation and, too often, the interests of the industry it regulates take precedence over the public interest. This report looks at the evolution […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Correcting the Record July 26, 2019
    Earlier this week Kris Sims and Franco Terrazzano of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation wrote an opinion piece that was published in the Calgary Sun, Edmonton Sun, Winnipeg Sun, Ottawa Sun and Toronto Sun. The opinion piece makes several false claims and connections regarding the Corporate Mapping Project (CMP), which we would like to correct. The […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Rental Wage in Canada July 18, 2019
    Our new report maps rental affordability in neighbourhoods across Canada by calculating the “rental wage,” which is the hourly wage needed to afford an average apartment without spending more than 30% of one’s earnings.  Across all of Canada, the average wage needed to afford a two-bedroom apartment is $22.40/h, or $20.20/h for an average one […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Towards Justice: Tackling Indigenous Child Poverty in Canada July 9, 2019
    CCPA senior economist David Macdonald co-authored a new report, Towards Justice: Tackling Indigenous Child Poverty in Canada­—released by Upstream Institute in partnership with the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA)—tracks child poverty rates using Census 2006, the 2011 National Household Survey and Census 2016. The report is available for […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Fossil-Power Top 50 launched July 3, 2019
    What do Suncor, Encana, the Royal Bank of Canada, the Fraser Institute and 46 other companies and organizations have in common? They are among the entities that make up the most influential fossil fuel industry players in Canada. Today, the Corporate Mapping Project (CMP) is drawing attention to these powerful corporations and organizations with the […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Poverty – The 1% Solution

Statistics Canada provides free of charge a very rich set of data on income issues, including low income (aka poverty) in 20/20 format.

Here you can find data on the incidence of low income by four different measures; by family type; and by quite detailed geography. (You have to play around with the active dimension to get at all of the data. Clicking “show all” will indicate the total menu under a dimension.)

The data include statistics on the depth of low income ie the degree to which the incomes of a particular group in low income fall short of the relevant poverty line.

One measure provided is the shortfall of incomes of those in low income compared to the total income of the whole group.

One rather striking triple factoid is this.

In 2008, the incidence of low income for all persons in Canada measured by the LICO After Tax measure was 9.4%, and the average gap or income shortfall relative to the LICO AT line was 33%. That gap in turn is equivalent to 1% of the after tax income of all Canadians.

In short, we could eliminate poverty by shifting just 1% of our collective income to the almost one in ten Canadians living in low income.

Now just why is that so difficult to do?

(By the way, the 1% figure is the same if you prefer the Market Basket Measure of low income to the LICO line.)

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Travis Fast
Time: January 11, 2011, 4:29 pm

Andrew,

One little quibble with this statement:

“In short, we could eliminate poverty by shifting just 1% of our collective income to the almost one in ten Canadians living in low income.”

We could eliminate income poverty but not the poverty gap in the equality of opportunity from education on out. I agree though that it would not take much fiscal effort to eliminate income poverty. It would seem the main stumbling block is rather ideological.

That said Hugh Segal, was sounding very reasonable on welfare reform a couple of weeks back on the CBC. Although he was perhaps just working on his desire to cleanse the state of unionised public sector workers. But if meaningful welfare reform along with the elimination of income poverty could be managed in one shot the resources could be freed-up to enhance existing or fund new public services that are directed at alleviating other aspects of poverty. Most welfare case workers I know would like to get out the income monitoring check writing business and do real social work.

Comment from duncan cameron
Time: January 11, 2011, 7:22 pm

Finding ways to illustrate the minimal cost of reducing income poverty is super important, and this is as good a metric as I have seen. I hope the AFB will make something out of it. We are still a long way from getting agreement around an acceptable minimum.
The larger question is the link between income and work. Overall we have to widen the situations in which generous income support is considered appropriate.

Comment from Purple Library Guy
Time: January 12, 2011, 4:54 pm

I assume that was a rhetorical question, but I’ll answer it anyway. It’s difficult to do because in our society poverty (like much of the unemployment) is not an unfortunate accident but a deliberate policy. The poor and unemployed constitute an example with which to threaten the middle class, to scare them out of resisting when their wages are squeezed and their working conditions worsened. They are a tool of “labour force discipline” that shift the relative bargaining power of capital and labour, allowing capital to impose “flexibility”.

Mind you, the rich still wouldn’t be about to let go of that 1% even if it weren’t for that. Every 1% counts when your goal is everything. But the real point is the other 1%s that it helps them pick from the pockets of the middle percentiles, and the increased social control poverty allows them.

Comment from Tom Simunovic
Time: January 26, 2011, 5:10 pm

Guaranteed income for everyone is the only cost effective solution of poverty and bureaucratic abuses.
All cocial programs can be eliminated by taxing national product 10% and then redistributing the proceeds equally to everyone, without any questions.

Comment from pjmora
Time: February 1, 2011, 5:15 pm

According to Jack E. Biddell, povery could be abolished and all social services could be paid by a 1% tax on “all” transactions. This tax could be easily collected by all banks at the time of the transaction.

Comment from Bob Eaton
Time: October 26, 2011, 9:09 pm

To answer Andrew’s quiestion directly, I think it would be dead easy and very economical because we already have the infrastructure in place to do that:
o We have an income tax system.
o We already pay (mostly to the poor) GST refunds.

Not only that but every bit of the money would be spent thereby stimulating the economy…

Wonder why that isn’t a political party’s policy…

Write a comment





Related articles