At 08:48 98-02-27 -0800, Tom Walker wrote:
>A $1000 GAI is $30 billion IF AND ONLY IF you account for it as an
>additional cost, over and above current program spending. By the same >token,
>a bicycle may look expensive IF you already own and maintain a car and will
>continue to do so after you buy the bicycle. In that kind of accounting,
>the car we already own is "free".
>
>Shouldn't the "how" question be concerned with the relative costs and
>benefits of alternative policy approaches, rather than simply the marginal
>cost of an innovation. If we look at costs and benefits comprehensively, we
>also have to be aware that any change also _shifts_ costs and benefits
>between people. It's not just the total costs and benefits of a public
>policy that we should be concerned with but also the distribution of costs
>and benefits.
>
>Regards,
>Tom Walker
AND
At 08:33 98-02-28 -0500, Thomas Lunde wrote:
>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.
Let's take that number and play a little arithmetic with it. $9000. for a
GAI for every one. That is 9 times the number that I selected as a for e.g.
Mr. Martin's budget on tuesday predicts revenues of $151billions and
expenses of $148billions. Now at $9000 for each of 30 million Canadians
that comes out to $270 billions.
Assuming that we scrap everything the government does now (not a bad idea
to many I'm sure) i.e. saving about $150 billion we wind up with only about
$120 billions new money to find.
That is where my feasibility doubts lie, regardless of the war to get the
first $150. Never mind gauntlet or sabers.
If anyone has the numbers of Canadians 18 to 25 it would be interesting to
find out how much that would cost (note that we already have $2.5 Billion
in the pot with the recent budget i.e. $250million for ten years :-). As
for the other chunk of people that I proposed, i.e. those having put in
their 30 years of work already - one might consider starting with those age
65 and above and work our way back - What this would do is eliminate the
bureaucracy needed to handle the current OAS (old age security) and the GIS
(garanteed income security) as these numbers are substantially equivalent
to the $9000 proposed.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for a Basic Income as a fundamental right.
However, intuitively it will not happen from cutting up the pie into
smaller pieces for all, but maybe by sharing the bigger pie more equitably.
Automation now allows us to do it, as good old Russell reminded us a while
back.
=========================================================================
Leisure is essential to civilization, and in former times leisure for the
few was only rendered possible by the labours of the many. But their
labours were valuable, not because work is good, but because leisure is
good. And with modern technique it would be possible to distribute
leisure justly without injury to civilization.
-- Lord Bertrand Russell, 1932, _In_Praise_of_Idleness_.
=========================================================================
Let us press on with the marching band parade :-)...
Peace, André
"The end of labor is to gain leisure." Aristotle.
-- ARG d'Ottawa ON Canada. Futuriste-au-loisir maintenant. --
