The Basic Income discussion on Futurework seems to be at the point
where a re-posting of the following might be of interest.
The Letter to the Editor was never published. Nor did the Prime
Minister follow up on his expressed interest in a GAI. However Canada, two
years later, now has a brand new Prime Minister with an explicit interest
in "democracy" beginning with Parliament. Hmmm....
Also the US, if anyone has happened to notice, is seguing from WMD to
"regime change" to "democracy," witness the President's recent address to the
National Endowment for Democracy, the increased activity around the Community of
Democracies, the notion of a caucus of the democracies in the UN, etc.
Maybe the following version of the BI (or GAI) will yet have
legs?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:10 PM
Subject: Guaranteed income
Some FWers may be interested in the following.
I should add that the letter was not, or at least has not yet, been
published.
Editor
The Ottawa Citizen
Ottawa, Ontario
Dear Sir,
The recent report (Ottawa Citizen, page 1, Saturday Dec. 9)
that the
Prime Minister is interested in a Guaranteed Annual
Income reminds me of a
suggestion put forward by the former
E.R.Olson, Q.C. when he was Associate
Deputy Minister
(Social Policy) in the Department of Justice in the
Trudeau
era. It strikes me that, in today's circumstances, the
Prime
Minister might welcome the suggestion.
Mr. Olson foresaw nothing but trouble -- mean-mindedness in
the
population and federal provincial tensions -- in any
discussion of the
guaranteed income as an element of social
policy. We would, he thought, just
be driving ourselves back
to the discredited discussions about who were
the
"deserving" poor and what level of guaranteed income the
country
could "afford."
He proposed shifting the entire discussion of a guaranteed
income out of
the context of social policy, where the focus
is on the neediness of
recipients. (Social policy is the
very context in which the Prime Minister
seems to be
proposing to situate the discussion.) Mr. Olson proposed
the
discussion be located instead in political context where the
focus
would be on the needs of the nation.
No democracy can function well without the full
participation of all its
citizens. An informed and effective
and responsible electorate is the sine
qua non to
maintaining our democracy and quality of life. We are
all
short-changed when some members of the society are
disenfranchised --
not by having no vote but by being unable
to exercise the responsibilities of
citizenship that go with
having the vote.
The question then becomes not "how much will a guaranteed
income cost?"
but "what is the cost of putting our political
future at risk?
I am reminded of this question when I see the dramatic
disparities in
the circumstances of Canada's children and
think about their future together
as adult citizens. The
difficulty faced by many of today's families in making
their
voices heard, let alone sharing in the activities that make
a
democracy work, is apparent. I think of it too when I hear
about people with
adequate income being bored or flippant
about politics, equating it with the
activities merely of
the political parties when it is in fact a much deeper
and
more significant institution, a remarkable process for
peaceful change
that is deserving of our attention and
respect and thoughtful
participation.
A visible and guaranteed income, arriving in our mailboxes
(a negative
income tax will never do: it is far too arcane)
might be a good reminder to
all of us. The net cost to the
country of recirculating a certain amount of
income in order
to recategorize it is minimal, and could yield
many
benefits. The question becomes "Can we afford not to invest
in a
universal guaranteed annual income?"
Mr. Olson thus saw a guaranteed income delivered in a
political context
as an extension of our enfranchisement as
citizens -- a way of making our
vote and political
participation more likely and thus helping to guarantee
our
future. He proposed that such a guaranteed income be called
"the
Canada Franchise."
My own view is that this is an excellent suggestion, that
such a
strengthening of the effectiveness of democratic
enfranchisement would
constitute a major step forward in the
long history of the development of
democracy. The Canada
Franchise would constitute a memorable legacy for
Mr.
Chretien to leave to Canadians and would set an example for
all
democratic nations.
Yours sincerely,
Gail Ward Stewart
December 12, 2000
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 7:37
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income
sites
I could imagine people being given their incomes for the
purpose not only of food, clothing and shelter but to develop capitalization
for their own entrepreneurial activities.
Or to pursue whatever their star happens to be.
For those who have no star or no entrepreneurial ability, a basic
income. They can't help being born what they are, but they are part of
society. For those with a special ability, help them cultivate it; help
them take it as far as they can.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 5:25
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic
Income sites
Within the context of capitalization. I
could imagine people being given their incomes for the purpose not only of
food, clothing and shelter but to develop capitalization for their own
entrepreneurial activities. Of course you would have to train
out the "get the most for the least" mentality that would just take the
money and run. Artists are always in need of seed money
for the work that they do. Grants are demeaning.
Figuring out how to encourage development of quality ideas and projects
without making a competition or giving it away to be spent on status goods
would be an issue but education works if you think hard enough about it and
have the discipline to complete it.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12:29
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic
Income sites
Chris:
> For Canada, that would be over $300 billion (about 5 Bill
Gateses worth --
> how many Bill Gateses does Canada have, btw?),
that is ~80 % of present
> tax revenues. (So I guess the
schools, hospitals, roads, sewage system,
> army etc. will have to
be maintained by unpaid volunteers then.) But
> since the BI
would be an incentive not to work, the tax revenues would
> fall
significantly. Bye bye Canadian forests and gas
reserves...
It would not be like that, Chris. 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. Nationally Canada has an Old Age Security program
and a Guaranteed Income Supplement, which provinces may top up. We
have a National Child Tax Benefit, with a significant amount for the first
child and only a little less for each additional child. So, leaving
aside, for the time being, the question of whether these expenditures
are too little or too much, we do in fact already have basic income
programs for the elderly and for children. Nationally also, we have
pensions for the disabled, and an insurance program for the
unemployed. Where we may be at our weakest is in the area of the
various welfare/workfare programs operated by the provinces. With a
rightward shift in provincial governments during the past couple of
decades, people needing to access these programs have come under
considerable duress.
One would also have to consider the costs of operating and stocking
all of those food banks, shelters for the homeless and other charities
directed at the poor. While these facilities and programs currently
operate out of the voluntary sector, they do have to rent facilities, pay
professional administrators and occasionally doctors and lawyers, and buy
food and other goods and services. This would perhaps be
one of the trickiest and most sensitive areas to deal with because
if you did anything that threatened to close down charities you would be
seen as depriving middle class people of something they can rightly feel
good about. You could have a political storm on
your hands. I think governments would be better to leave this
whole area alone until they could clearly demonstrate that there was no
longer a need for food banks, shelters, snow suit funds and so
forth.
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:
- 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;
- eligibility: a governing principle would very likely be that
anyone having an income higher than the established LICO values would
not be eligible;
- the extent to which a BI might consist of a direct payment versus
something like a negative income tax;
- the possibilities of making the BI, or aspects of it, premium based;
- making recipients feel that a BI is something they get as an
entitlement because they are a part of a good and caring society;
- yet making sure people didn't cheat because some inevitably will;
- 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. However, only
after matters like the above had been given thorough study would we know
whether a BI would be affordable or not. My guess (a matter of faith
at this point) is that it would be affordable without having to find five
Bill Gates and without having to chop down more trees that we are already
chopping down.
I believe I've listed some to the benefits of a BI in a previous
posting that I can't find right now, but they would include families
better able to cope, children better able to handle education, etc.
If I have time over the next few months, I may look at the BI question a
little more deeply.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christoph
Reuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 11:30 AM
Subject:
Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
> Thomas Lunde
wrote:
> > Well, Chris, you got me - sloppy analogy. Let me
try a different one.
We
> > have a benefit for children called
the Child Tax Benefit. Depending on
the
> > age of the
child and the number of children in the family - every
parent
is
> > eligible and I would say there is a 99%
participation rate. Now note
that
> > their is no income
eligibility. The millionaire's child is as eligible
as
>
> the pauper's child. However, this has to be declared as income
on the
> > yearly income tax filing and for low income families
they get to keep
all
> > the benefit of about $2000 per child
while the affluent having to add
this
> > to their income find
that the benefit is taxed back. The end result is
the
>
> poor get the benefit and the rich - while they are rich and it is
not
always
> > a permanent state, end up not getting the
benefit.
>
> The BI Canada website (recommended by Sally)
says:
> "Income tax would be paid from the first pound,
dollar, franc or mark of
> extra income, but the
basic income itself would not be taxable."
> This sounds like
everyone, rich or poor, can fully keep the BI
(untaxed).
>
>
> > I see a way for a Basic Income to
work in which everyone gets a monthly
> > cheque or weekly and
for the poor, they get to keep the Basic Income,
while
> > the
more affluent find that it is revenue neutral in the sense they
get
the
> > benefit on a monthly/weekly basis to use but at
the end of the year,
they
> > would repay the benefit while
paying there taxes
>
> But even if you change the rules as
described above, this system ends up
> penalizing work (taxing work
but not the BI). How can you solve the
> production problem
--and keep it solved-- with a society of non-workers ?
> Worse: who,
if not workers, is supposed to pay the taxes to fund the BI
?
>
>
> > I think a Basic Income does represent going
to the root of the problem
which
> > is an adequate
redistribution of wealth so that all citizens benefit
from
> >
the wealth of the country - not just the successful capitalists
or
overpaid
> >
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
executives.
>
> Now I understand why you said it's a Canadian
solution... "The wealth of
> the country" probably refers to
timber, oil&gas, and in the sell-out of
> natural resources, you
want to distribute it to all Canadians instead of
> just a few
managers of the sell-out.
>
> However, plundering forests and
fossil fuels is not a sustainable
solution,
> and it offers no
model for countries who lack natural resources
to
plunder.
>
>
> > > Going back to school or
building a house with a GBI ?? How many
thousand
> >
> dollars per month are you thinking of ?
> >
> > If
you follow the Basic Income web addresses that Sally posted a
few
days
> > ago and went to the United States web site, you
will see them talking
> > $25,000 a year. A few years ago,
I worked out a Basic Income based on
the
> > governments
budget with a figure of $10,000 per person per year.
>
> For
Canada, that would be over $300 billion (about 5 Bill Gateses worth
--
> how many Bill Gateses does Canada have, btw?), that is ~80 % of
present
> tax revenues. (So I guess the schools, hospitals,
roads, sewage system,
> army etc. will have to be maintained by
unpaid volunteers then.) But
> since the BI would be an
incentive not to work, the tax revenues would
> fall
significantly. Bye bye Canadian forests and gas
reserves...
>
>
> > I know the average knee jerk
reaction to the family of eight in that
many
> > women would
opt for 8 children and $80,000 a year. So what? It is
damn
> > hard work to raise eight children and I have read
statistics that each
child
> > costs the parent $250,000 to
raise a child in a middle class environment
and
> > through
University.
>
> Including through University, i.e. you're
talking about the first 25 years
> of life, times the BI of
$10,000/year gives exactly $250,000 ! But who
said
> that
they'll send all children to University, especially if the kids
can
> live on the BI without working anyway ? So you'll end up
with an
incentive
> to breed like rabbits and produce school
drop-outs with no incentive or
> desire to work or go to
University. In a society of uneducated mostly
> non-working
people, plundering the country's natural resources is indeed
> the
only option that remains... Canada the Saudi-Arabia of the North
?
>
>
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
|
