• 100,000 single mothers are receiving at least $1000/month
  
• 225,740 families are receiving $1,400 or more per month which represents a larger basic income than was tested in the Ontario Basic Income Pilot
• 400,000+ families are receiving more than $1,000 per month which represents the benchmark of many highly publicized basic income proposals;
• 1.1 million+ families are receiving $600 or more per month which represents more than amounts tested in the trials in Finland and Stockton, USA.

UBIWorks poses the question: Canada has seen hundreds of thousands receive unconditional basic incomes for several years amidst an economic climate steadily  improving economic growth, low inflation, and more people working with unemployment levels at 40 year record lows – what more is there to learn from more basic income pilots testing a few hundred or a few thousand people?

“In the absence of this program … about 588,000 children would fall below the poverty line, and 750,000 more Canadian children would live in families with incomes below $20,000.”

“The CCB provides a more financially secure environment for these children and increases their chances of growing up in a family where their basic needs are met.”

• For the most vulnerable (those families with less than $20,000 in income) the CCB effectively doubles their incomes. (Figures 3 + 4)
  
• Children in single parent families (80% female led) with at least one sibling are most likely to be kept out of poverty by the CCB (table 3 p. 18)
• CCB helps 37% of lone-parent families whose income would be below the poverty line remain above it, amounting to 131,600 families in total. Of these families 105,300 (, 80%) are female-led. – page 34
• From qualitative assessment – child benefit programs (like CCB) are an effective way to alleviate poverty and food insecurity, improve physical and mental health, and improve educational attainment (some of this is additionally supported by the research on Ontario pilot participants)

Lower-income families spend a larger share of their income on basic needs (food, shelter, education) (Fig. 13 p. 27)

CCB has contributed $139 billion to Canada’s GDP, with an annual contribution ($46 billion) equivalent to the total GDP of Nova Scotia

Without the CCB, the Canadian economy would be $46 Billion dollars smaller every year.

“Families who receive CCB income contribute economic activity by spending this additional income according to their needs. In so doing, they increase the demand for certain goods and services, which creates ripples throughout the economy through indirect and induced effects.” – Page 7

“The economic contribution of the CCB to Canada’s economy is substantial. Over the course of the program’s existence, the CCB’s contribution to GDP amounts to 2.1% of Canada’s total GDP. Every $1 disbursed through the program to Canadian families has translated to a $1.97 contribution to GDP, meaning that the economic activity generated by the CCB is almost twice the size of the CCB payments themselves.” – Page 8

That’s $4 of GDP is driven for every dollar it costs!

These results are well in line with the Bank of Canada’s estimation that the CCB added 0.5% points to economic growth in 2017 (Poloz 2017).

“The CCB generates government revenue through the consumption tax on all additional goods and services purchased by CCB recipients and their inputs, as well as through corporate and income tax paid on the revenues and wages supported by the CCB. This means that although the federal government finances the CCB, a portion of this expense is recovered.” – Page 31

“For every $1 disbursed to Canadian families through the CCB, over half ($0.55) is recuperated through taxes, $0.30 to the federal government and $0.25 to provincial governments.” – Page 8

Cost savings due to decreased crime and improved health have been found in other basic income pilots. For example, during the Basic Income experiment in Dauphin, Manitoba in the late 1970’s, an 8% decrease in hospitalization visits was measured.

The report from Cancea highlights:

Early investments in childhood education and health can have longlasting positive effects on health, well-being and earning potential, which can improve long-term economic productivity and lessen future strain on government-provided services such as healthcare.

“All industry sectors are supported to some degree by the stimulus generated by the CCB.” – Page 29

• $85 billion in business revenues (total output) every year – page 30 (3.2.2)
  
• $18 billion profits annually for Canadian businesses (total operating surplus)
• Since 2016 the CCB has caused $27 billion in private capital investments
• Since June 2016, estimated $256B in new revenue to Canadian businesses

“To fulfil the larger demand generated by the CCB, some businesses require more staff and workers, for example, additional store clerks, truck drivers, and supply chain managers. The industries and sectors of the economy which benefit the most from CCB-induced spending depend on the expenditure patterns of recipient families.”

• 453,000 full-time job equivalents per year are contributed by the CCB
  
• 24B in total budget for CCB in 2018 drives $85B in business revenues & 26B in wages from hiring – more than the cost of the program
• $77 billion in total additional wages since 2016
• One full-time job is for every 8th recipient of the CCB – Page 34

• “The authors also find evidence that families who receive greater child benefits increased their spending on goods that increase health and reduce their spending on “risky” goods such as tobacco and alcohol, which likely contributes to these positive health outcomes.” (Hoynes, Miller and Simon 2012)
  
• Bolsa Familia: “there is also evidence that the transfers shift expenditure patterns, increasing families’ share of expenditures on necessities, namely food, education and child clothing (Soares, Ribas and Osorio 2010). These findings provide support to the notion that a large-scale federal program such as the CCB can have wide-ranging socio-economic effects, namely in terms of poverty and inequality reduction.”

“In Canada, according to the Office of Consumer affairs 2011 surveys of spending patterns, low-income families spend most of their income on necessities, namely food, shelter and clothing. In addition, the survey shows that spending patterns differ between lone-parent and dual-parent families. Dual-parent families report higher expenditures on computer equipment and internet services, and since they are more likely to own a home and to have a mortgage, also report spending more on financial services. Lone-parent families are on average less likely to have durable assets than double-income families and therefore report higher expenditures on services such as laundromats and taxi transportation.” – Page 28

“A guaranteed income for families with children also has potentially large long-term effects on population health, educational success and earning potential. Related studies have consistently shown that child benefits increase physical and mental health outcomes and promote healthy development in children whose parents receive child benefits. These positive effects are amplified if families receive benefits earlier on in their children’s lives. Many also find that child benefits increase educational achievement. In the long term, the CCB may, therefore, contribute to economic growth by reducing healthcare costs and increasing the productivity of the workforce, and promote a healthier, more upwardly mobile population.”

• “Research has shown evidence that child benefits such as the CCB are effective ways to alleviate poverty and food insecurity, improve physical and mental health outcomes of children in lower-income households and improve cognitive outcomes and educational achievement”
  
• “This indicates potential long-term economic benefits the CCB, namely in terms of raising future earning potential and reducing healthcare costs.”