Garantierte grundlegende Einkommensrechnung im Senat | PBO -Schätzungen im April 2021 könnte die Armut um 49% senken

Economic family unit model: 

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) in its 2025 update, if a Guaranteed Livable Income (GLI) were implemented nationwide and offset by eliminating existing income support programs (like tax credits), the net cost to the federal government would be only about:

$3.6 billion annually in new spending,

after full offsets (from things like GST/HST credit, CCB supplement, etc.).

⸻
 What % of Canada’s Budget Would This Be?

The 2025 federal budget projects total federal program spending at around $480 billion (excluding debt charges).

So:

$3.6 billion ÷ $480 billion ≈ 0.75% of total federal spending

Source: https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/publications/RP-2425-029-S–distributional-analysis-national-guaranteed-basic-income-update–analyse-distributive-un-revenu-base-garanti-echelle-nationale-mise-jour

More comparisons. increasing Canada military budget NATO targets to 5% goal by 2035:

To reach 5% of GDP, Canada must bolster its defence budget by approximately CAD 114 billion annually, lifting the total to around CAD 154 billion per year.

-if Russia devoted 20% of its economy to military spending, it would only reach about $440 billion. (US dollars)
-If NATO spent just 5%, they’d still outspend Russia by over 5×. (2.5$ trillion U.S. dollars) 
-Currently, NATO spends about 2% of GDP on defense on average, which is still larger than Russia’s entire defense budget.

Buried the universal income debate is something sociologically fascinating. Mostly for the complete lack of debate over it. The PBO estimate used two different models. One where every *resident adult individual* gets it and one where every *economic unit* gets it.

It costs like 40% less roughly to allocate it only to family units. No „double-dipping“. Spouses would be considered together and receive less than two independent adults. Or in other words, if you cohabitate with someone in the middle class, they would be expected to support you and you would get no GBI.

This is deeply paternalistic and exploitative. It encourages abuse and dependency. It goes right back to ideas of how women are their husband’s property. They are a part of their husband’s household. It is the man’s duty to support his family.

Some provinces have similar policies with social assistance and disability. Such policies make it difficult to marry if you are poor or disabled, except within your class to another poor person. You would have no income to offer and are a financial burden where your spouse-to-be must take on the full cost to support you. Similarly, there is no means of gaining an income to escape your partner if they are abusive, other than by moving to a homeless shelter.