Hi Chris: Well, I think you are wrong. The concept is Canadian -mostly in the idea of Universality. We don't prevent the healthy from having Medicare, for we accept that ill health may come at any time to anyone. So too, poverty. What Basic Income is attempting to do, is to put a floor on poverty. That floor would prevent a thousand ills. Homelessness, inadequate diet, lack of work schemes, an assured base income could be used if you wanted to go back to school, build a house or write a poem, etc.
It would also release a tremendous amount of creativity, life skills and energy that is now tied up in trying to keep your head above water. The poor are not dumb or stupid but they are time and opportunity stressed to the nth degree. A basic income should be a human right, for it is at the base of the right to survive which should be every humans right. It also would give dignity and self respect to everyone for acknowledging their right to existence as a participant on the planet earth. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde ---------- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christoph Reuss) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites >Date: Mon, Dec 8, 2003, 2:46 PM > > Sally Lerner wrote: >> The (humble but striving) site for the Canadian BI group: >> http://www.basicincomecanada.org > ... >> I'm convinced that this will eventually happen, by whatever name and >> in whatever manner. >> Why? Check out the Basic Income/Canada site. > > It's a pity that this site only has a section "Arguments for a BI" (not > really answering the "Why?", btw) but not also a section that deals with > arguments _against_ a (general) BI. Unable to deal with them, perhaps? > Smacks of theology, anyway. > > This site actually advocates a general BI "paid to each man, woman and > child ... not conditional on other income or lack of it". The waste of > funds couldn't be clearer -- why pay something to those who don't need > it at all, billionaires included ? Since money doesn't fall from the > sky (or do you want to turn on the printing press?), the BI given to the > affluent would lack those in need. Wouldn't it be smarter (and more just) > to only pay BI to those who really need it, and reduce the number of those > who do as much as possible? Also consider that it is the working class > who will foot the bill. Considering this, 'arguments' like "[a GBI] > makes work worthwhile" / "lays the basis for hard work and enterprise" > give an Orwellian touch to that website indeed... > > Instead of penalizing productivity ("income tax would be paid from the first > pound"), other things would be so much more worth penalizing by taxation -- > e.g. inheritance, speculation, pollution and smoking/junkfood. > > It seems to me that GBI is a band-aid attempt to perpetuate (or worsen) > an unsustainable system of consumerism and injustice/inequality. > > Chris > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword > "igve". > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
