Sally Lerner writes:
> I would appreciate comments on: 1) the idea of a basic guaranteed income
> for individuals, linked to distribution of available paid work via a much
> shorter work week, incentives for education, community service,
> environmental restoration, etc., other ideas, and 2) realistically, how
> such an income program might be financed (combine current transfer
> programs, taxation, other ideas.)
>
> Sally Lerner Futurework Project U. of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
>
I agree totally that every individual should have a guaranteed
minimum income, at least. However, I disagree that this should be
accomplished via some sort of "program" that leaves capitalist
property rights intact. Rather property rights should be defined so
that *everybody* has a stake in the social product, not just those
who are lucky enough to have the wherewithal to make the right
investments in (human) capital. Roemer has suggested one way of
accomplishing this, via a "clamshell" economy, but there are lots of
possibilities out there, many of which are likely to work better
both on efficiency and fairness grounds than capitalism.
You wonder if I'm being "realistic". No less so than a
proposal for guaranteed minimum income accomplished through taxes,
transfers, and public provision of services, given the existing
property regime is left intact. The lesson seems to be that, unless
one is in a country like Sweden, where individuals are relatively
inclined to think "there but for fate go I", and create the social
programs to correspond, the tax and transfer approach just doesn't
work--too much political opposition, too much wasted resources, too
little autonomy left to the "beneficiaries" of such programs.
There is something inherently cockeyed about an approach which allows
people to think of income as "theirs" (via private property rights,
pre-tax), and then taking it away from them and giving it to someone
else, with strings attached.
California and New Jersey provide two dramatic recent examples of
what happens when the public is required to contemplate any
significant redistribution of income in this manner, e.g. through
spending on public education. The result in both cases, a backlash
which impoverished the public sector and precluded any meaningful
redistribution. As Jim Devine's recent post indicates, people would
rather spend money on prisons than public education--somehow not
seeing that stinginess in the latter department eventually translates
into greater burdens in the former.
Thus, if you're going to contemplate a significant program of income
redistribution, I say might as well do it right. The political
opposition would be the same in either case, and if you redefine
property rights, there's less chance that your basic income program
will be trashed when the next Reagan is elected.
Some sources on the issue: Ellerman, _Against Capitalism_, Cambridge
U Press; Van Parijs has a new book on Basic Income, Routledge Press,
I think; John Roemer has a book coming out on market socialism, I
forget the name or the publisher.
Gil [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
