basic income is interesting in the "liberal" (French meaning, ie economic liberal, "laisser-faire") way.
usual charity inspired system put tax on good outcome, par tof which are caused by good behaviors (most which only people themselves have control on and can see) . they put tax on good behaviors! people seldom refuse to get a work to keep help, but they often suffer from lack of good consequence from their good(productive) behaviors. basic income simply make that you don't lose more money by earning more money. It push people to work, and to get out of trouble as if nobody was helping them. it is hard to accept that people with unfair trouble should not be helped more than people without unfair trouble, but if you accept that people with trouble have a little capacity to avoid part of it, to prevent it from the origin, ... people will brush their teeth more, care of their eyes, will avoid sick colleagues and aven sens them at home to avoid epidemy, they will save the cost of glasses and repair them... while they will be free to buy expensive teeth, and sexy glasses if it is their desire, at the expense of their restaurant budget. not at the expense of public money. what I find shocking in the morality driven social system it is that it prevent people to be different, to have a different morality tha hurts nobody on the material side. I know people who were living in a trailer (forbidden in france, to avoid poverty symptom), eating potatoes and pasta, working like crazy, just to pay skydiving. Some people would like to tax more people having sailboat, because it is perceived as luxury, but what if it is your passion and you accept to have a poor life beside ? basic income will just say : - I (your neighbour) won't let you starve, dies of diseases or would - working in any way is always good - saving cost is always good - I (your neighbour) won't put my nose in your decisions, to work, to save, to waste, and to have vacations one expected advantage, don't laugh, is that people will work more, consume less insurances and costs, because they see a direct interest and they are not taxed on their good behaviors. i see that revolution to be accompanied by few changes : - all expense that are done to contribute to any activity, should be tax exempted like for a company. tax should only be paid on the pleasure you get. (avoid double taxing...). It put nanny when you work in that domain (if your wife is more productive than a nanny, but less than a taxed nanny, it is stupid for her to be self-nanny just for money), or DIY on a productive good (if you take longer to repair your truck than a mechanic, and can produce more than him meanwhile, tax should not make it profitable). - like in US, if you did really stupid economic decision, or get very unlucky, you should be allowed to file a chapter 11, even if managed by "senior executive" if judge feel you really are incompetent... you have the right to "reset your life", and investors should know it if they invest in you. bankruptcy law are essential in a "liberal" society. anyway like for hot fusion, there are too many mouse in the cheese that profit from verifying expenses, planning, selling political programs for and against, 2016-03-07 5:17 GMT+01:00 Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com>: > Harry, > I liked the discussion. > There was much to take from this debate. > Just as important is to change the tax system and the power distribution. > Obviously a progressive tax system but a smooth progress. Take away all > deductions and tax all type of income equally. > Eliminate all double taxation. > The definition of work needs to be looked upon with reality in mind. > When the garbage workers go on strike it is an emergency after a week or > two. > When the bankers went on strike in Ireland everything went on as usual and > after six months the bankers began work again. > There is work and then there is work. > Finland an Switzerland are considering seriously to implement the idea. > I suppose the US should try at least to look into the issue. We certainly > have a more complicated social system than most European countries. > The debate showed that there are not without problem to implement > something like basic income. > Unfortunately there is a lot of people that think a step wise change would > be good. > It reminds me of the proposal when Sweden went from left to right side > driving in -67; "why don't we start with the trucks?" > We have a tendency to overthink things. In Switzerland they talk about > 2,500 CH franken (CHF) per adult and 800 CHF for children. > I think that type of complication will open up for complications. > Anyhow, the debate was good. I think we need something to make things more > equal all over the world. > I think the timing is ripe. Just like all changes it has resistance. > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > > lenn...@thornros.com > +1 916 436 1899 > > Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and > enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) > > > On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 5:23 PM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03kptyk >> BBC audio >> What if governments paid all their citizens a basic income? Whether >> rich or poor, you would receive the same amount of money, and you >> would keep it whether you went out to work and received a salary or >> not. It is an idea that has been around for centuries, but one that >> has been gaining traction in recent times as welfare payments become >> ever more complex and expensive to administer. Proponents also argue >> that it would remove the 'poverty trap' where people are dissuaded >> from seeking work because they would lose their benefits if they did >> so. There is also the issue of machines taking over many of the jobs >> that we all do to earn a living - not just basic manual tasks, but >> increasingly 'intelligent' work that will in the future be carried out >> by robots. Join Owen Bennett Jones and his panel of expert guests as >> they discuss the future of work and how we pay for it. Should we give >> free money to everyone and let robots take the strain? >> >> >
