> Ed,
>
> The problem is that most Basic Income ideas want to take from the rich and
> give to the poor. As I said, if the rich earned it, we have no right to
> their earnings. If they are rich because the government gave them a
> lucrative privilege, the privilege should be removed.
>
> It shouldn't be supported and then taxed. That's ridiculous.
>
> Harry

Harry, there are many ways to become rich.  Some people, though not too
many, started on the shop floor and worked their way up.  I would support
the possibility that they earned it and might be considered the deserving
rich.  However, ever so many people were born rich and inherited it.  I
would consider them somewhat less deserving.  Then there are the Worldcoms
and Enrons, which I suspect are the tip of a rather large iceberg.  They are
the least deserving.

There also are the innovators and the very clever, like Bill Gates and
George Soros.  I wouldn't know where to put them.  Some of them give a lot
of their money away.  Though they have lots of it, I suspect they're not
really in it for the money.

I guess the main point is whether we are a society or not.  If we are, we do
have obligations to each other.  If we are just a bunch of sharks floating
around, as someone in the Calgary oil patch once put it, I guess we don't.
Personally, I don't buy the latter.

Ed


----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Fw: Reality Internet


> As you know, Rent (in the Classical sense) is a creation of the community
> that finds its way into private hands. If it were to be collected and
given
> back to the community that created it, not only would it make sense, it
> would be the moral thing to do.
>
> Some Georgists place this "Citizen's Dividend" high on their agenda.
>
> All figures are highly suspect and my arithmetic is more so. There is a
> total land value in the US of about $30 trillion. At 5% we can capitalize
> down to an annual income of $1.5 trillion - to be divided among (say) 300
> million Americans.
>
> That would seem to work out at about $5,000 for every man, woman, and
> child. Let's halve it for much of it is land speculation. So, a nuclear
> family of four would get $10,000 Citizen's Dividend - without taking a
> penny from the people who earned their wealth.
>
> Yet, this isn't so important. What is important is to stop the
hemorrhaging
> from the economy caused by heavy speculation in the basic source of all
our
> production.
>
> Harry
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Ed wrote:
>
> >Ray, surely the idea is not to redistribute everything.  Surely all that
is
> >needed is some form of redistribution that ensures that everyone in a
> >society has enough to live on if they happen to lose their jobs or are
> >unable to work for some other reason.  Unlike welfare, it should be
> >something that is so integral to society that no one could be labeled or
> >stigmatized because they make use of it.  If it existed, we wouldn't need
> >things like welfare, disability payments, or employment insurance.  On
the
> >part of society, the operating moral principle would be that every
citizen
> >is entitled to it.  On the part of the citizen, the operating moral
> >principle would be to use it only when one had to.  Some people would
have
> >to use it permanently, but hopefully most only temporarily.  It's like
the
> >basic income proposals Sally Lerner used to promote on this list.
> >
> >Ed Weick
>
>
>
> ****************************************************
> Harry Pollard
> Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles
> Box 655   Tujunga   CA   91042
> Tel: (818) 352-4141  --  Fax: (818) 353-2242
> http://home.attbi.com/~haledward
> ****************************************************
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.484 / Virus Database: 282 - Release Date: 5/27/2003
>

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to