Dear Ed:
Thanks for reading my proposal and commenting.
Ed said:
>
>If the objective is to transfer income from the haves to the have nots, I
>don't understand why it can't be done through the tax system. Any parent
>without an income could be given a basic credit, hence a "refund", of
>$15,000, plus a diminishing amount for each kid (on grounds that each
>successive kid is less expensive). This credit would be reduced steeply as
>income (it would probably have to be family income) rose and would then
>become negative, though remaining progressive, at a certain income level.
>All other aspects of the tax system would continue as they now are.
Thomas:
First of all, I consider that tax system very flawed. Secondly, it
stigmatizes the recipient to be singled out as one needing the support of
other members of society. Third, it requires a considerable amount of
record keeping, policing and it has to have it's appeal procedures and
punishments for transgression. I want to use the concept of Universality -
everyone gets it, simply, easily, without any judgment or evaluations based
on age, need, citizenship or immigrant status, etc. Any other type of
system seems to me to be one in which over time the benefits get eroded and
the needy get screwed. Much like what happened to perfectly good UI system,
which in now a very bad EI situation.
>
>The main point is that what would be paid out of this extra tax to the poor
>would be recovered from the rich. For example, if the expenditure bill was
>$10 billion, that much would have to be recovered from incomes above the
>cut-off level.
Thomas:
I would change the word "recovered" to the word "recycled" from the rich.
The rich will continue to benefit from this as there will be more money on
the demand side of the equation creating more opportunities for those with
capital to provide goods and services.
>
>Selecting certain types of government expenditures for payment by
"premiums"
>has me baffled as well. What is the difference between a "premium" and a
>tax? Besides the things you picked, there are other important public
>concerns - e.g. the environment, research and development, justice,
internal
>security. And you should never think that Aboriginal people would give up
>their constitutionally entrenched programming for something that they would
>see as just another form of welfare.
Thomas:
In our current system of representative democracy which is really a party
democracy in which a few members of the Cabinet act for the party, we the
citizens have no say in specifics like defense, education or Medicare. The
creation of three super agencies that have to present ( I know this wasn't
clearly stated in the proposal) yearly budgets to the population or perhaps
three budgets per dept and the citizens in a vote ok or reject the proposals
gives control back to the citizen. So, if we want the best Medicare system
in the world, we can ask the super agency to provide us with a cost estimate
for that system and we can vote directly for or against that cost. I would
also expect an active group of interested citizen watchdog groups to be
monitoring and presenting alternatives or questions costs or procedures when
these budgets are produced.
When I pay a premium, I am making a direct payment for a direct service.
When I pay a tax, I am paying into a general fund and someone else is
deciding how that fund is used. In my opinion, governments continually
misuse these general funds. I think citizens should have more direct
control and ability to demand accountability.
You will note that I still left the government 50 million dollars or general
fund taxes to do all the other activities, hire game wardens, control the
food and drug inspectors, decide whether to support rape centers, build
embassies in foreign lands, etc. I want a nation that allows the citizen to
control how the citizens resources are used in three main areas. Protection
of the nation and of individuals = Army, Navy, Air Force, Secret Service,
Coast Guard and perhaps even RCMP. Two, in protection against illness and
accident through medical assistance = Medicare and finally through education
as each individual desires to the level they desire.
Frankly, I think the aboriginal people will find this acceptable, however,
let us let them speak for themselves. I take away none of their rights
regarding land or status, I suggest the change from Treaty payments to the
Basic Income will be preferable to the evaluation of the current Indian
Affairs Dept. If there are cases were a top up is needed, then I leave it
to the government with it's 50 Billion to make the necessary adjustment.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
>
>Ed Weick
>
