Harry, what is a negative externality and what does it have to do with owning what you produce?
REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Thomas Lunde'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:31 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites > Tom, > > As you have probably gathered, I have been working for most of > the last 50 years to obtain justice for all. Justice doesn't mean > a chicken in every pot, or a BI. IT means no more than that a > person will keep what he produces and shares equally the bounties > of nature. > > So, the problem with some of your remarks is that there are > consequences. > > Such as the threshold, something that occurs often in economics > but is given a variety of names. > > If one gets $900 for no work - but $1,100 (net after taxes $800) > if you work - why should you work? I might choose unemployment > plus welfare as a preferred alternative (perhaps with some > off-tax work under the counter). This is done everywhere now. > > It's a constant welfare problem. If the welfare is not enough to > provide a reasonable standard of living, cries arise for more. > Yet, as welfare rises and approaches real net wages, there is > greater incentive not to work, but to collect the freebies. > > If welfare is reduced, more people work but the demands to > increase welfare increase. Incidentally, it was found that if > unemployment payments were extended over a greater time, the > search for work sagged. > > Reducing the length of time that unemployment benefits are paid > results in a scramble for jobs. > > Obviously! This is just an extension of the two assumptions. > You'll recall those. Yet, it's just another threshold thing that > makes the welfare theorist have puppies. > > With regard to "black" working, you may recall my story about > those poor people living in low rent flats in Toronto. The > council found that they were working two or three jobs (not > allowed) and with the advantage of low rents, saving enough to > get a home of their own. > > The puffed up peacocks of the Toronto City Council were properly > annoyed at this. Needless to say, I loved it and used the CBC to > good effect supporting these people. > > You suggested "raising the minimum wage to a realistic $12 -14 an > hour, but then the cost would fall totally on those businesses > that use minimum wage employees". > > Not quite - the cost would fall entirely on the hamburger > consumers. > > (Not even that quite. It would fall on those speculative > land-values I've talked about - but that gets a little > technical.) > > What the heck is a clawback? > > Harry > > ******************************************** > Henry George School of Social Science > of Los Angeles > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 > http://haledward.home.comcast.net > ******************************************** > > <clip> > > Thomas: I don't see a BI system as replacing the work for wages > system. I > see the BI system as a support system for a variety of ills. On > a previous > posting, I suggested $10,000 which is about what we Guarantee our > Senior > Citizens through government universality pensions > > At about $900 a month for Basic Income, there is a strong > incentative to get > a job. You're never going to buy a new house or car on $900 a > month. But > if you got a minimum wage job which brings you in about $1100 > gross and > maybe $800 net, all of sudden that shit work becomes worth doing > with a BI > supplement. Now the same thing could be accomplished by raising > the minimum > wage to a realistic $12 -14 an hour, but then the cost would fall > totally on > those businesses that use minimum wage employees and they would > scream - > unfair and I think rightly so. Plus, it would still leave those > with no > jobs dependent on Provincial Welfare which is less than $900 a > month and > creates tons of problems and expenses. > > But for those who can't find work or for some personal reason do > not want to > work at this point in their life, there is a support system that > they can > depend on to supply basic needs. That one would spend their > whole life > living on $900 a month is a ridicoulous assumption. > > As to the last sentence, I have mentioned in a previous posting > that there > is clawback when there is no need through the tax system. > > Respectfully, > > Thomas Lunde > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 12/15/2003 > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
