Vote No
An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income
Overall, the bill points toward a costly national GLBI without committing to pro-growth design, fiscal neutrality, or program consolidation, creating material risks to work incentives and competitiveness. Because it is only a framework mandate, many impacts are uncertain, but its direction of travel conflicts with several core tenets absent explicit safeguards.
No question period cards yet.
A nationwide GLBI suggests large permanent spending that likely requires higher taxes or debt, posing risks to growth and national wealth absent offsetting pro-growth reforms.
Unconditional cash can expand individual choice and risk-taking, but the bill does not commit to reducing bureaucracy or simplifying programs; net effect is unclear.
Likely higher labour taxes and reduced labour supply would weigh on productivity and competitiveness; the bill includes no productivity-enhancing measures.
The bill does not address trade, export capacity, or market access.
A GLBI might support entrepreneurship via income stability, but potential tax increases could deter investment; the framework is silent on design details.
Efficiency could improve if GLBI replaces overlapping programs, but the bill does not mandate consolidation or cost control and adds new reporting requirements.
Implementing a livable, universal income would likely require higher taxes or steep benefit claw-backs, both of which can penalize work and risk-taking.
While GLBI is a large-scale change, the bill is a planning exercise and does not demonstrate how it would drive broad-based prosperity.
Did we get the builder vote wrong?
Email [email protected]