Dear Andre:
Well the gauntlet is thrown down so I draw my sword and engage. Let this be
the opening salvo of many heated discussions. I take the general
information and specific quotes from a recently published book (1997) titled
"AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE FOR ALL", subtitle Welfare Reform in the 21st Century
by Michael L. Murray.
To paraphrase, he is basing his program on a Universal Entitlement of $6000
US or approx. $9000 Canadian for every adult and $2000 US or $3000 Canadian
for every child in the US. The benefits to be paid bi-weekly through
electronic banking.
I quote:
There are two elements to my proposed funding method - a 35% flat income
tax, with a value-added tax (VAT) to supplement if necessary.
The figures he provides in the back of the book show his arithmetic. If he
is right and his credentials are a Professor of Insurance in the College of
Business Administration as Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, so I would
assume he has done his research.
I would suggest some of those with more research skills than I possess,
evaluate whether these numbers would work in Canada. Understand that all
pensions, EI, Provincial Welfare, Dept. of Indian Affairs payments can be
canceled and replaced with a Basic Income of $9000. Anyone receiving more
from a particular program such as a family of a single mother with two kids
on welfare, would receive $9000 plus $6000 for a total of $15,000. In
Ontario, a single mom in these circumstances currently receives approx.
$1140 per month 13,680 plus a GST rebate and child tax credit which come to
approx. $1000 extra a year.
The big difference is not in amounts, but in the reduced administration
costs and the inequalities of qualifying and maintaining eligibility status
as various governments constantly tinker with the legislation.
Now, Andre, being an engineer, I challenge you to test this hypothesis as
critically as you can, after all, we would not want to build a structure
that would fall down.
Respectfully
Thomas Lunde
-----Original Message-----
From: AR Gouin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Thomas Lunde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Future Work
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: February 26, 1998 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: FW Some hard questions about a Basic Income 1
>At 10:45 98-02-25 -0500, Thomas Lunde wrote:
>>
>>This is indeed truly exciting a perhaps a valid reason why a grassroots
>debate come education process should take place in the medium of the
>Internet on Lists like FutureWork. One of my thoughts to those who have
>queried the costs of such a system of income redistribution of a Basic
>Income and to which I have replied "wait" is that I think an education
>process arrived at through discussion of the philosophy of "why" is more
>important than "how", without negating that in the future, that will have
>to be an important discussion. The fact that you have presented us with
>historical evidence that I, at least, was not aware of is very important.
>So to end this little essay, it would seem to me and I hope to others, that
>a Posting of the Canadian Franchise be posted into this discussion ASAP.
>>
>
>As an engineer I consider the feasibility of anything to ponder as crucial.
>
>e.g. let's say the GAI is $1000./year. In Canada, at say 30 millions of us,
>that means 30,000 million CAD. Now by the general reaction to Martin's 2.5
>billion CAD to students over ten years, I've grave doubts about the chances
>of any Basic Income soon, unless it can be shown to be feasible.
>
>Not wishing to rain on your parade, but ... The "why" battle is won, the
>hard part is the "how" war. Good luck.
>
>Amicably,
>
>
>"The end of labor is to gain leisure." Aristotle.
> -- ARG d'Ottawa ON Canada. Futuriste-au-loisir maintenant. --
>
>
