At 19:00 98-02-19 -0500, Thomas Lunde wrote:
>Given that the concept of a Basic
>Income, Guaranteed Annual Income or some other variant on this theme, what
>would the philosophy be that could justify giving every man, woman and
>child a Basic Income paid on a weekly basis with no other qualification
>other than citizenship?
To which Tom Walker responded :
>A basic, guaranteed income is not a panacea and it won't solve all the
>problems. But it is an important part of the solution (along with reduced
>standard work time). As long as we don't see those parts of the solution
>being seriously addressed by government, we can be sure that governments
>are not even trying to solve the problem.
>
And Brad McCormick added :
>Hasn't our society already answered this question for all those
>persons who "come into" an annual income by accident of
>birth rather than their accountable personal efforts? (This is obvious,
>but surely not irrelevant.)
>
It is rather interesting to note that the latter result i.e. "born into an
annual income by accident" follows in part from refusing to accept the
first two propositions.
Guaranteed Annual Income (or some such) is not about to come to be so long
as it is not clear who's going to pay for it.
Reduced working time for the same income is also not about to come into
being so long as, again, it is not clear who is going to pay for it.
My proposal to advance both concepts would be to introduce the GAI for ages
18 to 25 and after 30 years of work life. Those not born into GAI would now
have a chance of substituting spermatozoid luck with personal effort. If
they are successful their progeny might not have a similar task :-).
Seriously, I'm all for GAI - its success depends on the way of its
introduction. I'm also for reduced work time - not on a weekly basis but on
a lifetime basis. Of my 40 years of "work", I can very easily identify at
least ten that I could have done without. And they were not all made up
40-hour weeks. To trade 40 hours of drudgery for 30 hours of drudgery is
not much of an improvement humanly and intellectually, even for the same
income. In fact, most often I found great satisfaction where my workweek
was much more then 40 hours of interesting and intellectually challenging
endeavours, and not necessarily overpaid.
Now as to who should pay for it, the question remains open. However, it
surely will not be from "job-income" sources, as these will and should all
disappear in the medium or long term, depending on the wisdom of those who
have the power. From their (the Canadians at least) current approach
towards the social security system, the longer (much longer) term seems
much more likely.
Peace,
"The end of labor is to gain leisure." Aristotle.
-- ARG d'Ottawa ON Canada. Futuriste-au-loisir maintenant. --
