As part of the BC Basic Income project, my team and I were tasked with trying to understand the system of income and social supports available to BC residents. We developed these visualizations which have proven very popular

Pair these with our paper that goes through a detailed description of the system of income and social supports in BC here https://t.co/LosL7sQNc8
TLDNR? There are 194 programs offered by the various governments that are available to support BCers in various stages of life and crises. The federal government offers more supports in terms of money, the province more in terms of basic services.
While complexity has disadvantages, a big advantage is that the multiple points of entry actually means that there are multiple ways a person can be assessed for assistance for all these programs better capturing those that fall through cracks in other programs.
Given that the fed tends to offer cash programs and BC tends to offer basic services and we were asked if BC should offer a basic income, naturally this begs the tradeoff question then should BC replace its services with income supports. Our answer was unequivocally no.
But it seems that this nuance of who offers what, income vs services, in our federalist system and why has been lost. Also lost is fiscal capacity. But that is OK because we got you covered there as well. @trevortombe dove into BC's fiscal sustainability https://t.co/YFeWWBovRm
Which cycles me back to last week when someone asked me how I could be on a @RoyalEconSoc panel that advocated for a comprehensive federal income support system and be on a BC panel that advocated for a targetted and mixed system. Well above is a summative reason.
But let's be clear, no government is able to deliver its supports to the most vulnerable at all. Which is another reason by the panel actually lists a number of recommendations for both the BC and the federal government to shore up gaps in benefit delivery.
We will, in fact, not address poverty, not address material deprivation, unless we address systemic failures in benefit delivery, which, yes, are tied to bias, discrimination, racism, reconcilation, etc. reconciliation.
Which is why the panel commissioned papers on GBA+ and poverty in BC https://t.co/0yZpfoLJe7 GBA+ and Basic income https://t.co/lC87u9JEMY
And a third paper on GBA + and the current system which will be posted shortly as it is just going through final review via the DIP program.

More from Finance

THREAD: Who are the rising stars of Chinese elite politics in the central Party-State bureaucracy?

For @MacroPoloChina I analyzed last year's ministerial-level promotions to posts in Beijing

TLDR: Ties to Xi Jinping—or a Xi ally—are very helpful! (1/14)

https://t.co/kO2A0Efyq2


Seven politicians were promoted to ministerial-level positions in central Party agencies last year

All are likely to feature on the next Central Committee selected at the 2022 Party Congress

Some could make the CCP's elite 25-person Politburo (2/14)

https://t.co/kO2A0Efyq2


Likeliest for the Politburo is Meng Xiangfeng, new Executive Deputy Director of the CCP General Office

He would replace Xi ally Ding Xuexiang as CCP chief-of-staff if Ding is promoted further in 2022

Meng worked under Xi allies Cai Qi in Hangzhou and Chen Xi in Liaoning (3/14)


Less likely for the Politburo but still important is Jiang Jinquan, new Director of the CCP Policy Research Office

He replaces 5th-ranked leader Wang Huning who led the Party's brains trust for 18 years

Wang remains prominent and will be <68 in 2022, so he'll stay around (4/14)


Other notable central Party promotions include Li Shulei and Liang Yanshun, who both assisted Xi when he led the Central Party School from 2007-2012

Li is a political conservative who is said to be quite close with Xi, even drafting his 2014 speech on culture and art (5/14)

You May Also Like

1/12

RT-PCR corona (test) scam

Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as


2/12

It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as


3/12

The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu


4/12

Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID


5/12

Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as