Minimalism

There's a proposal in Switzerland to have a minimum income for all citizens. That is, a cheque from the government for all adults, no means test, no questions asked.

On the surface, it seems like a crazy idea based purely on quixotic ideology and no sense of reality. But it's actually being taken seriously by a lot of people, even some on the right side of the political spectrum.

The Swiss proposal calls for $2,800 a month. Working it out how affordable it would be in Canada is complex because of our two levels of government, but here's my quick calculations:  Adjusting for price differences (Switzerland is expensive) it would cost $173 billion in Ontario.  Ontario's budget is $127 billion, and Canada's budget is $279 billion, with Ontario making up 38% of Canada's population.

This may seem like a lot of money. But here's where it gets interesting, and less lefty. The basic income would replace a huge number of other expenditures: welfare, employment insurance, pensions. And that's before we even get to some more unexpected things, say the arts. If a person has a backup income, there's no need to get a further government payment to pursue an arts career.
On top of all this there's the bureaucratic efficiency. I'm loathe to mention that, because a promise of saving money through efficient bureaucracy is usually the crutch of desperate politicians with no real ideas. But if you've just replaced much of the government with a big machine that prints cheques, then you probably can expect some savings.

So there's a strange appeal to some on the right. If your libertarianism is motivated more by ideology than as a premise for lowering your taxes, then this will have an appeal. Even icon of conservative economics Friedrich Hayek liked the idea. In the end it does give people freedom and choice, while reducing the bureaucracy. Essentially it's reducing the size of government, without reducing its fiscal size. It's libertarianism a Keynesian could love.

Just to be clear, I'm still not sold on this idea. We don't know what effect this is going to have on work incentives. There's also the fact that we're applying a "just enough to get by" income on some people who deserve more, like people who would work, but have physical or mental reasons they can't. And then there's the fact that this set-up makes the "Robin Hood" nature of the welfare state is particularly apparent, which will rub many the wrong way.

But I still think it's interesting to consider, because you can think of it as an ideological compromise between the individual agency of conservatism and libertarianism, and the safety net of liberalism and socialism. Really, it's no surprise the idea has found traction in Switzerland, since it seems to be one of the few countries that holds both sides as integral national values.