At 01:37 98-03-01 -0500, Tom Walker wrote:
>Andre's arithmetic doesn't follow the example that Thomas Lunde was
>referring to and it doesn't provide even the most rudimentary model of the
>economy into which and from which all those straw expenditures and revenues
>would be flowing. But more importantly, it's beside the point. The real
>problems with a GAI are not the hypothetical dollar amounts that can be
>generated from hypothetical arithmetic.
I don't understand that I am not following the example. I always get into
this trouble whenever I get involved in economic matters :-(. Let me repeat
it :
At 08:33 98-02-28 -0500, Thomas Lunde wrote:
> 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.
>
A new term "Universal Entitlement" which, to me, means "everybody" gets it
equally - right? Maybe I can be accused of spreading the $9000 wealth right
across all ages (only to reduce the bureaucratic bean counting to save some
to pay for all this) - but in fiction everything is allowed, no?.
Nevertheless I note that the discussion is spreading to "Basic Income";
"Garanteed Annual Income"; "Negative Income Tax" (without being identified
as such); and whatever else. I feel I'm getting confused, as usually
happens whenever I venture in economics.
>The technical problem is to design
>a tax system that generates revenues for the GAI without establishing
>marginal
>tax rates that make it unrewarding to work. The political problem is that
>there isn't a powerful constituency for a GAI but there are powerful
>constituencies supporting current forms of state expenditure.
>
That's exactly my point. Let's just say that once that constituency is
convinced to let go of the first $150 billion the next $120 billion will be
a snap. But I have grave doubts about the results, if only because it (the
powerful constituencies) can't even recognize that those earning $30000
today are being taxed at a 60% marginal rate and that this is unjust,
especially when it drops down to 40-45% for the richer(s). That might be a
good starting point to fix. The constituency for a GAI is not powerful
because it maybe addressing the problem too globally. When we note our
bureaucrats gnawing away at all our "universal" systems, health, education,
old age pensions, I get the feeling that GAI is going counter-current, even
though I'm all for it as a just alternative to spreading the wealth,
especially that created by machines.
I've heard this concept called "Citizen Dividend". Now that might make it
an easier sell. Just trying to help remain in reality. Good luck... back to
lurking in the hope of seeing surprising results.
Regards,
"The end of labor is to gain leisure." Aristotle.
-- ARG d'Ottawa ON Canada. Futuriste-au-loisir maintenant. --
