Andre Gouin wrote:
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.
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.
Thomas
I agree, this question has to be answered and
later in this thread - if it lasts - perhaps we can deal with some potential
answers. In a manner of speaking, it is already being paid for through a
variety of programs for the poor and a variety of labour laws protecting the
worker and a variety of opportunities created by the capitalistic system.
However, the imbalance in the redistribution of income is weighted towards the
worker and the investor. The concept of the Basic Income is an attempt to
find a way to redistribute income, not to continue the imbalances of the present
system.
Capitalism has been acknowledged as the best
system for the efficient use of raw materials and the distribution of products
at the lowest price. It is also acknowledged to have failed in fairly
redistributing income. Though I could argue this statement, let us for the
sake of discussion assume that it is mostly true and that for it to remain, a
correction has to be made that is different from the current situation.
One of those corrections posited is the Basic Income. My question is, can
we find a reason of sufficient strength to overcome the inertia of the present
state to change that would lead to this solution?
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
