To: Stuart Duffin, Director Citizen's Income Study Centre (CISC) London School of Economics and Political Science, and friends on several mail lists. At URL <http://citiinco01.uuhost.uk.uu.net/discussion/index.shtml>, CISC has opened a public debate on a citizen's income and related topics, with monthly questions to lead the discussion. The February question reads: >> Should a CI be introduced to all demographic groups (defined by age, sex and/or socio-economic standing) simultaneously, or is there an argument for piecemeal introduction? << A straight forward cost estimate for a $5,000/year per head CI/BI for the whole population of the US, using the 1994 data below, shows the annual expense to be 21% of GNP, on top of the current 30% of GNP total US tax rate. That is a hard sell, as members of BIEN, CISC, UBINZ, and US advocates of a Citizen's Dividend can testify. US data for 1994 GNP = $6,343 billion/year Population = 260.5 million Workforce = 132 million Life expectancy = 76 years CI/BI = $5,000/year per person The idea of introducing a Basic Income simultaneously to all demographic groups (defined by age, sex and/or socio- economic standing) has gained support during the last two decades. Previous proposals to improve the well being of citizens, from the proposals of Thomas Paine in 1975 to those of Bertrand Russell seemed to direct the benefits primarily toward the young parenting families. In his 1915 book, Principles Of Social Reconstruction, Bertrand Russell identified four elements in a Citizen's Income or Basic Income (CI/BI) in the order of the elements occurrence in the lifecycle of an individual person. (1) Dependents and students, prior to becoming self-sufficient. (2) Mothers, caring for children, instead of joining the workforce. (3) All other persons of working age, regardless of employment. (4) All persons retired from the workforce. If the lack of media and public response to proposals for a macro CI/BI encourages arguments in favor of a piecemeal implementation of one or more of Bertrand Russells elements, the approximate costs of each element would be as follows: Life cycle elements, (cost as percentage of GNP). 1) birth to 17 years = 4.6% of GNP 2-3) 17 to 65 years = 13.0% of GNP 4) 65 years to average 76 years = 3.0% of GNP. The cost side of the analysis is quite straight forward. But how many words will be needed to persuade the media and the public of the benefits, if any, which would result from implementing each of the four elements? Element (4) is already established in the industrial nations at much more than $5,000/year per person. Element (3) will offend the Anglo-American "work ethic." Element (2) will evoke the Anglo-American "Mother-in-law" syndrome. So the question remaining is, what benefit may we expect from implementing element (1)? I try to economize on words, even on a macro subject, so I would base my estimate of the benefit to be expected from (1) on the graphic macro model Figures 1 through 6 and graphic micro model Figures 7-9 posted at URL <http://www.freespeech.org/darves/bert.html> and at URL <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/3142/IR/items/ 19990119WesBurtSustainableFuture.html>. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about the global model, but only a few, are posted at URL <http://plaza.powersurfr.com/Usalama/economics.html> Now this line of inquiry is not for everyone. Some of us don't like sitting on our hands until the current trends towards a human "Die-Off" finally knocks the world population back from the current six billion to the Greenies' "sustainable" two billion. If you are looking for alternatives to waiting for the "Die-Off," the conceptual framework provided by the above global model will integrate the unique experiences and view points that each of us brings to a debate on what ails industrial society, and identify element (1) above as the two hundred year old systemic defect of omission in the public policy of industrial nations. There is no need to "reinvent the wheel" after the business community has employed its best minds, for the last two hundred years, on perfecting this global model for their multinational corporations. As Adam Smith said in his First Maxim of Taxation, Page 777 of TWON, the expense of government is like the expense of management. The public revenue and the corporate gross margin must each develop and sustain a population of reproducible productive assets. One is a human society, one is a capital society, and they operate in tandem with a common flow of M1 (Dollars per year) through both. We call the flow our Gross National.Product (GNP). Sincerely, Wesburt
