A stimulating note from thre Basic Income list.... Sally Lerner
>X-Originating-IP: [193.60.131.100]
>From: "Conall Boyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: BI: BI or GAI ?
>Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 10:55:24 IST
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Precedence: bulk
>
>
>I read most of our BI maillings but seldom reply. Robert Rosenstein
>unimaginative confusion over 'work' and 'jobs' has stung me into action!
>
>RR encapsulates the old industrial-age thinking which so grips our
>legislators, and , yes, perceptions of the public at large. "He that does
>not work, neither shall he eat" says the Good Book. But work and jobs are
>NOT the same thing, although many fall into the trap of thinking it. It's
>the ECONOMY that values the effort of say Tiger Woods playing games with
>stick and ball, and classifies caring for your children as 'unproductive'.
>There are even the truly farciacal campaigns to 'get mothers back to work'in
>both UK and US. Surely WE can think differently?
>
>I agree that the public at large is still in the grip of a job-equals-work
>psychosis, that paid employment is the Holy Grail for men, women, ethnics,
>disabled etc etc. We as a society have come to value one form of work - paid
>employment - however pointless and damaging, over all other necessary and
>useful effort. Basic Income would be the clearest signal that we value ALL
>useful effort.
>
>But Basic Income launched onto today's jobs-obsessed society would, as RR
>rightly points out be unpopular, be seen as a 'scroungers and shirkers
>charter', even seen somewhat ludicrously as anti-work. So we need to proceed
>with caution. Instead of Basic Income I would prefer to start with a label
>like 'Enterprise Allowance'. This would be given to all of working age
>(16-70 these days) who are actively engaged doing something useful. This
>could include business start-ups, but the main aim is to promote community
>activity of all kinds. (It worked once in the UK during the 1908's, and was
>so popular they abolished it!)
>
>I realise that 'Enterprise Allowance' introduces an element of
>conditionality into the pristine model of BI, but without it BI is
>unsalable. "You mean my tax $ or £ is going to featherbed young layabouts"
>is the killer comment. Now maybe instead is we raised tax by reclaiming for
>the community the value created by all our efforts....Resources Taxation,
>then we could claim that BI is an Entitlement Income, just like the dividend
>paid out to Aunt Maud on those bonds she inherited. But finding an
>appropriate way to raise the money to pay for BI is another story! (P.S. The
>British Chancellor Gordon Browne has gained £13 billion ($20 billion)
>selling fresh air! He is selling leases to use the airwaves. But who does
>that money belong to? Why shouldn't it be distributed as BI? Ah the joy of
>Resource Tax!)
>
>Conall Boyle, Birmingham, England (founder member, 1984, of UK Basic Income
>Research Group)
>
>>From: Robert Rosenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: BI: BI or GAI ?
>>Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 09:51:23 -0400
>>
>>Hello, all:
>>
>>Another question that must be discussed and decided is that of a Basic
>>Income vs. a Guaranteed Annual Income.
>>
>>And still another issue is whether such an income should be given
>>regardless of a person's income from other sources.
>>
>>Still another issue is whether all persons should receive this income,
>>regardless of any other factors.
>>
>>In all of the above cases, an underlying issue is how the amount of the
>>income is determined. This question, though, I believe should be reserved
>>for last, because it is the character of the income that will determine
>>the amount.
>>
>>BI vs GUI.
>>So long as we have not made the transition from a work-oriented society,
>>that is, from a society in which it is universally believed that a person
>>who isn't working doesn't deserve to live as well as a person who is
>>working, I believe a GAI is both necessary and desireable. It is
>>psychologically necesary because because the receipt of a regular weekly
>>or biweekly income will have a salutary effect on the large part of the
>>population who can't work (or earn enough) for any of a variety of
>>reasons. It is socially desireable, because it will initiate the
>>transition from a society that has had a work-ethic drummed into them,
>>to a society that recognizes that because of economic, technological and
>>population factors, such an ethic is now untenable.
>>
>>1. There is, at present, an external or social stigma in not having a job
>>and therefore not earning the money necessary to support one's self
>>and/or family. There is also an internal or psychological stigma in not
>>having a job in the midst of a working population.
>>
>>2. The phrase "Basic Income" has both an equalitarian and welfare sound
>>to it. It implies the minimum amount necessary to survive in minimal
>>housing and in an environment where there is minimal opportunity to
>>improve one's status.
>>
>>3. A Basic Income not only implies, but would seem to demand, that a
>>second party will dictate what constitutes a Basic Income for everyone -
>>not taking into account all the factors that make each of us different
>>from the other in regard to our needs.
>>
>>4. The phrase Basic Income is intimately related to the idea of Basic
>>Needs which, in many person's eyes, means only those needs that are
>>necessary for physical survival. This is psychologically and socially
>>unacceptable for many reasons but especially because it reenforces the
>>social and economic status quo by minimally defusing the potential to
>>rebel or riot.
>>
>>I don't think it is necessary to spell out (what I think are) the
>>advantages of a Guarantee Annual Income. They are, in effect, the
>>corralaries of the above. The problem may be illustrated by a simple
>>example.
>>
>>On the one hand we have 18-year olds out of school and on their own, with
>>no particular skills and without a job.
>>On the other hand we have a couple with two school-age children, one who
>>has been taking dancing lessons for some time. They live in a house with
>>a mortgage and have the usual car and credit card payments to meet. One
>>of the wage-earners, through no fault of their own, has been let-go by
>>the company he or she has been working for for the past several years.
>>
>>Please comment.
>>
>>Robert
>>
>>Robert Rosenstein
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>________________________________________________________________
>>YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
>>Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
>>Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
>>http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
