Ed Weick wrote: > A basic income would likely require a net budgetary expenditure, but what > should happen, and probably would happen is that many currently existing > social programs would be rolled into it.
Do you know the total amount of all currently existing social programs ? (i.e. an estimate of what percentage of the $300bn this is) > A basic income program would have to look at all of the foregoing >initiatives > and programs to see how many of them could be rolled into a >single BI program. > The design of a program would have to consider >several matters: > a.. the value of a BI - most probably, low income cut-offs adjusted for > family size and location (rural/urban etc.) would come into play here; > b.. eligibility: a governing principle would very likely be that anyone > having an income higher than the established LICO values would not be > eligible; > c.. the extent to which a BI might consist of a direct payment versus > something like a negative income tax; > d.. the possibilities of making the BI, or aspects of it, premium based; > e.. making recipients feel that a BI is something they get as an > entitlement because they are a part of a good and caring society; > f.. yet making sure people didn't cheat because some inevitably will; > g.. etc. > As the foregoing suggests, I see an BI not as something everyone would get, > but as a top-up for people and families who cannot afford a relatively > decent lifestyle in a wealthy country. Thanks Ed. It seems that the more thought people put into this, the more their proposal moves away from the GBI proposed at the BI Canada website, towards the Swiss solution I described. Duh. ;-) 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
