> 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.
Thomas: Though I applaud your stated goal, it sounds like the ol survival of the fittest argument to me with slightly different rules. In other words, if a person produces nothing of "value" according the current market, or if for a year or two he is unemployed due to circumstances beyond his control - well, no bounties for you my friend - please go die somewhere. > > 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. Thomas: Ah, the God of Work, how will we ever dethrone him. I would work because I had aspirations to have more than the Basic Income. The word Basic is not used because it is catchy, it is used as a descriptive word. Very few would choose to remain on the Basic Income their whole lives. However knowing that I would not starve or be evicted or lose my non existant credit rating due to lack of Income would create many more options for me and others that I don't have 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. Thomas: Acknowledging your point as valid does not say that rules cannot be found to find a balance that would work for everyone. As you know, the crazy economists of both our countries have bought into the idea that to prevent inflation and preserve the value of capital, it is advantageous to maintain unemployment at about 7%. The United States cheated. First they gave us Friedman with his arcane model of the man at the lever of the Central Reserve Bank being able to control the economy through interest rates, but then after almost collapsing the Canadian economy with his disciple John Crow, you guys went and threw the theory out the window and allowed Unemployment to go down as low as 4% in the 90's, leaving us up in Canada with still over 7% unemployed and trying to survive. > 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. Thomas: In my opinion the "search for work declined" because there was no work to find - and the poor aren't stupid like the well off, when we can't find a job then we quit looking and yes, we cry for more welfare - which we didn't get because the neo con philosophy blames the victim - until they become victimized and then they whine and cry too until a bailout or government subsidy or a change in the Labour Laws saves their ass. Tell me Harry, what politician in the last 30 years has talked about full employment -zero. And yet everyone claims that there is work if you only look. But in the greater picture the unemployment rate does not change so if someone gets a job - someone else loses a job - how else can the stats stay the same. > > 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. Thomas: With great clarity you have cut to the heart of the problem. It's true the cost will be passed onto the consumer. But for the individual working, the benefit is that they get a living wage and the middle class do not get cheap hamburgers. As it is now, if you have a good income, the lower prices that are squeezing the poor are actually giving them a real bargain. Let them pay the price instead of the poor, they have the resources the poor don't. > > (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? Thomas: It's a word we use to describe a benefit given to everyone - such as the Child Tax Benefit, that a Provincial Government will count as income and deduct it from the Welfare Rate. Very punitive. > > 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
