Don't shoot me. I'm only the messenger.
At 12:51 16/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
(KH)
Your special problem in Canada is that your government(s) has already committed itself to future welfare payments of over 400% of your present GDP. How on earth you are ever going to afford those, goodness knows. You cannot possibly afford to consider any extra welfare payments. You will certainly need a voluntary sector (and a very large one, too, one imagines!).
(EW)
Keith, absolute nonsense! I have no idea of where you got your numbers, but no government, even ours, is that stupid.
I'm afraid that the IMF thinks so. This from a report, "Who will Pay?" by Peter Heller, Deputy Director of Fiscal Affairs, IMF. Canada already has an explicit debt of something like 40-50% of GDP, but has committed itself already to future commitements of about 400% of GDP. See the Economist of 22 November 2003 for a summary of the report. In respect of future commitments, Canada is already twice as bad as France and Germany and they're already right up to the hilt in what they can squeeze from the taxpayer.
But I do appreciate your sense of humour. I don't know if you saw my piece on how a BI might be cobbled together from existing programs. And this morning I posted a suggestion that you could have a universal BI program with clawback provisions.
But, surely, clawbacks invalidate it as a BI. You might just as well suggest further sets of welfare provisions. But even a Labour government over here is talking about the need to reduce all sorts of pensions and benefits in the future, and we've much less current debt and far fewer future commitments than Canada.
Keith
Ed
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Keith Hudson
- To: Ed Weick
- Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:38 AM
- Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
- Ed,
- At 19:18 15/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
- A special problem we have in Canada, and I know we're not unique, is the division of responsibilities under our constitution. The federal government is responsible for some things, the provinces for others. Too many people at the table to get an easy agreement. Thank God we have a large voluntary sector that actually does things while our two levels of government wrangle themselves into stalemates!
- Your special problem in Canada is that your government(s) has already committed itself to future welfare payments of over 400% of your present GDP. How on earth you are ever going to afford those, goodness knows. You cannot possibly afford to consider any extra welfare payments. You will certainly need a voluntary sector (and a very large one, too, one imagines!).
- Keith
Ed
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 3:19 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites I agree. I was too sharp in my response. I apologize. I think Ed's posting covers why it is affordable. But we may not be socially ready for BI. We are used to taking from the pot but not giving back. My fear is that BI will only accentuate taking and not giving. It may not be a good idea, in my view, since we have yet to educate/socialize people understand that they are part of society and that while society is responsible to them with BI, they are also connected to and involved with society such that they are expected to give back to society. Blame on too many years of "smash and grab" consumerism/capitalism or "bowling alone" or what have you. arthur -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites Arthur Cordell wrote: > I think similar criticisms were levelled against the minimum wage, child > labour laws, old age security, medicare, etc. > > Same old, same old. Can't afford it today. Wait. Wait. Someday. > > Rubbish. Being in favor of the minimum wage(*), child labour laws, old age security, medicare, etc., but opposed to BI, I think there's a fundamental difference between the former and the latter: BI is of the "perpetuum mobile" kind. (not in the sense that BI works forever but that it won't work at all) It would be a pity if name-calling ("rubbish") and misrepresentation of my arguments ("can't afford it today" -- no, can't afford it tomorrow either!) would be the only "arguments" of Arthur in reply to my posting and BI-example ($1.2 billion) of 13-Dec-03. Let's hear some good arguments (if possible with numbers) please... [if there are any] (*) Btw, I was informed that a Canadian province has reduced the minimum wage from $8 to $6 (Can.). For comparison, it's about $15 in Switzerland. I guess that's why a Swiss emigré mechanic recently had to return from Canada to work for 6 weeks here, and with the money he earned he can live for 5 months in Canada with his whole family. So Arthur, perhaps Industry Canada should introduce a _livable_ minimum wage for _workers_ first, before you fancy about an unaffordable BI for everyone being "affordable". 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 Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
