An Ontario Program Shows the Cruelty of the Basic Income Cheques-for-Cuts Design

A follow-up to yesterday’s piece: Basic Income: A Plan to Rip Away Supports from Disabled Canadians and Orphans (not a joke).

TL;DR: The typical Basic Income proposal uses a “cheques-for-cuts” approach, where a BI is financed partly through the elimination of ‘redundant’ needs-based programs. However, an Ontario reform illustrates that you cannot replace needs-based programs with one-size-fits-all supports without making high-needs individuals worse off. The math simply does not work.

In my previous piece, I talked about the grievous harms that a Basic Income using a “cheques-for-cuts” model can have on Canada’s most vulnerable and marginalized. In this piece, I detail how this is not just a theoretical concern, but rather the exact problem I describe happened in Ontario.

Before I begin, it’s important to note that the Basic Income movement is dedicated to improving the lives of Canadians and would be horrified by the idea that the cuts in their plans would hurt the most marginal and vulnerable in our society. The problem with these plans is not the intent of the advocates, but simply that the advocates haven’t thought through the harms that their proposed cuts would cause.

Let’s review what a “Cheques-for-Cuts” Basic Income model looks like. It has three components:

1. Everyone in a group is eligible for a basic income (BI) cheque, with some demographics (e.g. seniors), possibly receiving larger-sized cheques. The individual circumstances (that is, their individual “needs”) is not considered except (in some models) beyond their taxable income and what demographic category they are in.
2. The BI cheque is financed, in part, through the elimination of needs-based supports which the BI supposedly makes redundant.
3. The remainder is financed through increased government expenditures, so that the net dollar expenditures are higher than they were before.

Ontario tried this, and it’s been a total and utter disaster. No, I’m not talking about the Basic Income pilot under Kathleen Wynne (though that had significant problems as well). I’m talking about Doug Ford’s Ontario Autism Program (OAP).

Let’s review what the Ford government did, and how it exactly matches the Basic Income approach, using our 3 points:

Everyone in a group is eligible for a basic income (BI) cheque, with some demographics (e.g. seniors), possibly receiving larger-sized cheques. The individual circumstances (that is, their individual “needs”) is not considered except (in some models) beyond their taxable income and what demographic category they are in.

This is a perfect summary of Ford’s OAP. Kids on the autism spectrum receive cheques to purchase services; with children under the age of 6 receiving $20,000 in supports, and kids 6-and-older receiving $5,000. No other accounting of their needs is considered. And, the initial Ford OAP, the size of these cheques were determined by the size of a family’s income, just like in some Basic Income models! (This feature, dubbed the autism tax, was removed from the Ford OAP after significant protests by advocates).

The BI cheque is financed, in part, through the elimination of needs-based supports which the BI supposedly makes redundant.

Exactly what Ford did. He removed needs-based supports. Eliminating needs-based therapy has been controversial, due to the harms it has caused families with kids on the spectrum:

And finally,

The remainder is financed through increased government expenditures, so that the net dollar expenditures are higher than they were before.

And this applies again, with the OAP budget having been increased from $320 million to $600 million (through a series of revisions to Ford’s plan in a failed attempt to quiet advocates).

Despite doubling the budget of the OAP, the Ford government has made families with autism worse off. How? Through the waste the program causes, since dollars do not flow to where they are most needed. The Ford system causes some children to have significant unmet needs, while others are going to receive far more resources than they can use. Dollars are not effective unless they are targeted.

Doug Ford followed the Basic Income playbook to the letter with his failed Ontario Autism Program that left families in crisis. Of course, the temptation for the left here is to say, “well, it’s Doug Ford, of course he screwed it up.” But the problem is the playbook itself. In short:

You cannot replace needs-based programs with one-size-fits-all supports without making high-needs individuals worse off, no matter how noble your intentions are. The math simply does not work.

A cheques-for-cuts Basic Income is inherently harmful, as it replaces equity with equality:

This is why groups like the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty have been so vocal in their opposition to the idea. And it’s why families like mine have attended so many protests to get rid of Doug Ford’s harmful Basic Income-based Ontario Autism Program.