Harry, thanks for the correction. I have discussed this subject previously only in Finnish, so I was unsure if the basic income is widely used term. In finnish language, we do not use the term negative income tax, but indeed we use basic income. (Economic impact is the same for both but administration is different)
Basic income is absolutely fabulous concept, because it could remove all poverty and suffering from Earth with little monetary efforts. It is sad that people experience so much difficulties of understanding the concept. Somehow it reminds me cold fusion debate, that people attack it fiercely although they really do not have real arguments. I am glad to hear pilot project in India. It won't take many years before we see that it does much more with much much less money. Because the benefit is the most stricking where the need for basic necessities is the most urgent, i.e. in poor countries. Most sad thing is, that any wealthy individual could change the world by sponsoring basic income for some African village. —Jouni On Aug 9, 2011 3:43 AM, "Harry Veeder" <hlvee...@yahoo.com> wrote: > These are related proposals, but unlike the negative income tax concept, > basic income is a universal and unconditional payment. > > Basic Income pilot project has just begun in India: > http://binews.org/2011/08/opinion-two-pilot-schemes-in-india/ > > A Basic Income project in Nambia: > http://www.bignam.org/ > > A small Basic Income project in Brasil: > https://www.facebook.com/BIGQUATINGAVELHO?v=info > > Harry > > > From: Jouni Valkonen <jounivalko...@gmail.com> >>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >>Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 8:36:43 AM >>Subject: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax >> >>Global negative income tax >> >>There would be radical sounding, but very plausible solution for all >>war and absolute poverty related social problems. That is ca. $1000 >>annual negative income tax for each adult citizens of Earth >>indifferently on their past history or current wealth. >> >>This may sound radical idea, but actually it is not. If it's pros and >>cons are carefully weighted it really has no meaningful counter >>arguments. As total global GDP is around 76 teradollars, it would >>require only 9% total tax rate for each countries. This is not too >>much, if it is considered that typical Western European Citizen would >>pay $4000 annual tax, but would also receive back one quarter of that, >>i.e. $3000 net payment or 6% of her income. >> >>To understand that there is no counter arguments, but only prejudices >>might be hard, but it should not be that. One thing is that these cost >>figures would not last very long, because third world countries would >>receive huge relative boost for their national economy and that would >>eventually lead to more even income distribution and thus less unjust >>economic burden for rich countries. >> >>In order to participate to this program there should be strict zero >>tolerance for war in any form, because there is no such thing as >>justified war. There should be also required at least nominal >>democratic elections and somewhat bureaucracy free markets. Also there >>should be possibility to collect efficiently at least 9% of national >>GDP taxes in order to pay each country's share of common cake. Right >>now even Greece has difficulties with this due to its intensive and >>inefficient bureaucracy and thus extensive black economy. >> >>With these requirements all willing countries or economic zones would >>rise very fast from the economic black hole what is caused by >>intensive absolute poverty, continuous civil wars, inhumane dictators >>and lastly but certainly not for least intensive government >>bureaucracy for any means for people to employ themself as >>entrepreneurs. This is by no means trivial notion but poverty and wars >>cost absolutely gargantuan amount of money for the global economy, >>because warring and poor people are deprived almost totally from the >>effective labor opportunities. >> >>This is why poverty is itself just a huge cost with zero benefit, but >>it is better to ensure basic needs for all people, so that they can >>have their time left for doing something productive (like doing >>IT-work and buying iPads) and not using their time for trying to >>survive as farmer-gatherers in the slum. Also this is why total cost >>of negative income tax is always greatly positive, because it >>increases effective purchasing power due to more even distribution of >>wealth. And jobs and especially rich people's pay rolls are strictly >>depended on total effective purchasing power of the poorest majority >>of people. >> >>It is somewhat surprising to see how simple is this solution to solve >>all global social problems that were thought to be insoluble, because >>old people thinks that social welfare and development aid for third >>world countries should be strictly need based. Also this would greatly >>increase globalization and after all, we do have only one planet. And >>is this solution socialistic? Not at all, because this would >>practically force global economy to be vastly more capital driven than >>current state, where huge amounts of tax moneys are collected and they >>are spent to the socialistic megaprojects such as antigravity driven >>b2 bombers. Negative income tax will always return every collected tax >>dollar back to market and it increases effective purchasing power. >>Therefore the cost for global economy is essentially zero, if not >>positive as it increases total effective purchasing power by >>distributing resources more evenly. >> >>For these reasons and many more arguments global negative income tax >>should be perfect companion for E-Cat that they both have possibility >>end all basic need related social problems once and for all! >> >>—Jouni >> >> >> >>
