Affordability gap between rich and poor

The main idea behind GAI historically is that it is cheaper to replace the complex and bureaucratic patchwork of income support programs with a GAI.  GAI also removes current work disincentives found in existing welfare programs.  This cost-savings aspect (while improving economic security universally) is covered in detail in Brian Steensland's latest book (2008), which dissects the GAI debates in the U.S. throughout the 1960s and 70s.  It is why those on the right have approved of it, including Senator Hugh Segal and Reginald Stackhouse for example, while also seeing the freedom and fairness aspects of the policy.  Here is a good article Stackhouse wrote on the topic recently:  An Income for All Canadians http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/304074

Alaska's Permanent Dividend Fund is sometimes looked to as one aspect or form of GAI.  With a green carbon tax and focus on sustainability that greens bring to the debate the Alaska model can be modified to improve resource management while providing a more generous GAI/dividend.  The initiator of the Alaska Dividend envisioned it paying out 4-8 times what it currently does to every Alaskan.  Health cost savings are also an important feature of the introduction of GAI, as poverty carries a large financial and health cost to Canadian society, not to mention social cost.

Milton Friedman first suggested a GAI, but his idea was to replace almost all other forms of social assistance with negative taxation.  

The original idea behind the social credit party was an interesting implementation of it as well based on a redistributive credit being evenly distributed.  (It would have required government to have its own banking system.)

Last time around we introduced the concept, but we didn't fully push it. Without a constitutional agreement, the federal government would not be able to encroach on areas of provincial jurisdiction.

I believe its a novel and needed idea, but the devil is in the details.  For instance, in Vancouver, where housing supply is almost nil, a GAI couldn't on its own provide everyone with an affordable housing, as the stock wouldn't be there, and an increase in income supplements would just drive the cost of living up higher.

Probably a better way to do things is to work at providing a comprehensive safety net.  Build affordable and sustainable housing, with an aim to build some of them outside of existing urban centers to decentralize the economy.  Used refundable tax credits to companies who hire students and require all individuals seeking income assistance to be taking skill or training.  

Ultimately, one of the challenges will be is to encourage smaller lifestyles, as we cannot keep growing infinitely.

With a few exceptions, (maternity leave, seniors, disabled) the GAI would only work if someone is willing to put in some effort back into society.  (IE, attending school, or working some sort of job.)

I have to say, though, I can't really stand ideologies caught up on the "gap" between the rich and the poor.  Focus on bringing the floor up, not the ceiling down.

I don't think that the gap between the rich and poor is the same discussion about helping the poor.  We can probably afford to feed, clothe and house everyone in Canada and still have plenty of money left over for a huge wealth gap.  The problem with giving stuff out for free is that people stop contributing, so then you have to implement a means test, and people will scam the means test, so you have to make it more rigorous, and then some people fall through the cracks, etc., etc.  GAI is certainly a more organized model, but it's still only a general notion, and hence the cost/benefit depends on the implementation.  So if we want to cheer GAI, we should define a model, or at least some aspects of it.

Regarding the wealth gap, I always wondered why tax brackets weren't determined by wealth distribution.  The exact numbers aren't relevant here, but I don't know why brackets can't be based off mathematical formulae.  Tax levels should be set based on the distribution of wealth for the prior year.  The bigger the gap, the higher the tax brackets move.  If there is more equity, then the tax brackets move lower.  Setting tax brackets and tax rates shouldn't be arbitrary, nor should they be set at the whim of a politician.