Dear Sally and F?W friends
This question of guaranteed income within upper and lower bounds is at
Number 4 of the 'Seven Point Action Plan'
It can be delivered if the other six points are taken on board too!
e-hugs
john
*************
ps Bill asked that I offer a week by week commentary on the Seven Point
Plan - its coming soon !!
(Thanks Bill!)
More hugs
*************
----------
>From: "S. Lerner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: FWk:Re: BI: BI or GAI ? (fwd)
>Date: Wed, Apr 5, 2000, 9:51 am
>
>A stimulating note from thre Basic Income list.... Sally Lerner
>
>>X-Originating-IP: [193.60.131.100]
>>From: "Conall Boyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: BI: BI or GAI ?
>>Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 10:55:24 IST
>>Mime-Version: 1.0
>>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Precedence: bulk
>>
>>
>>I read most of our BI maillings but seldom reply. Robert Rosenstein
>>unimaginative confusion over 'work' and 'jobs' has stung me into action!
>>
>>RR encapsulates the old industrial-age thinking which so grips our
>>legislators, and , yes, perceptions of the public at large. "He that does
>>not work, neither shall he eat" says the Good Book. But work and jobs are
>>NOT the same thing, although many fall into the trap of thinking it. It's
>>the ECONOMY that values the effort of say Tiger Woods playing games with
>>stick and ball, and classifies caring for your children as 'unproductive'.
>>There are even the truly farciacal campaigns to 'get mothers back to work'in
>>both UK and US. Surely WE can think differently?
>>
>>I agree that the public at large is still in the grip of a job-equals-work
>>psychosis, that paid employment is the Holy Grail for men, women, ethnics,
>>disabled etc etc. We as a society have come to value one form of work - paid
>>employment - however pointless and damaging, over all other necessary and
>>useful effort. Basic Income would be the clearest signal that we value ALL
>>useful effort.
>>
>>But Basic Income launched onto today's jobs-obsessed society would, as RR
>>rightly points out be unpopular, be seen as a 'scroungers and shirkers
>>charter', even seen somewhat ludicrously as anti-work. So we need to proceed
>>with caution. Instead of Basic Income I would prefer to start with a label
>>like 'Enterprise Allowance'. This would be given to all of working age
>>(16-70 these days) who are actively engaged doing something useful. This
>>could include business start-ups, but the main aim is to promote community
>>activity of all kinds. (It worked once in the UK during the 1908's, and was
>>so popular they abolished it!)
>>
>>I realise that 'Enterprise Allowance' introduces an element of
>>conditionality into the pristine model of BI, but without it BI is
>>unsalable. "You mean my tax $ or £ is going to featherbed young layabouts"
>>is the killer comment. Now maybe instead is we raised tax by reclaiming for
>>the community the value created by all our efforts....Resources Taxation,
>>then we could claim that BI is an Entitlement Income, just like the dividend
>>paid out to Aunt Maud on those bonds she inherited. But finding an
>>appropriate way to raise the money to pay for BI is another story! (P.S. The
>>British Chancellor Gordon Browne has gained £13 billion ($20 billion)
>>selling fresh air! He is selling leases to use the airwaves. But who does
>>that money belong to? Why shouldn't it be distributed as BI? Ah the joy of
>>Resource Tax!)
>>
>>Conall Boyle, Birmingham, England (founder member, 1984, of UK Basic Income
>>Research Group)
>>
>>>From: Robert Rosenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>Subject: BI: BI or GAI ?
>>>Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 09:51:23 -0400
>>>
>>>Hello, all:
>>>
>>>Another question that must be discussed and decided is that of a Basic
>>>Income vs. a Guaranteed Annual Income.
>>>
>>>And still another issue is whether such an income should be given
>>>regardless of a person's income from other sources.
>>>
>>>Still another issue is whether all persons should receive this income,
>>>regardless of any other factors.
>>>
>>>In all of the above cases, an underlying issue is how the amount of the
>>>income is determined. This question, though, I believe should be reserved
>>>for last, because it is the character of the income that will determine
>>>the amount.
>>>
>>>BI vs GUI.
>>>So long as we have not made the transition from a work-oriented society,
>>>that is, from a society in which it is universally believed that a person
>>>who isn't working doesn't deserve to live as well as a person who is
>>>working, I believe a GAI is both necessary and desireable. It is
>>>psychologically necesary because because the receipt of a regular weekly
>>>or biweekly income will have a salutary effect on the large part of the
>>>population who can't work (or earn enough) for any of a variety of
>>>reasons. It is socially desireable, because it will initiate the
>>>transition from a society that has had a work-ethic drummed into them,
>>>to a society that recognizes that because of economic, technological and
>>>population factors, such an ethic is now untenable.
>>>
>>>1. There is, at present, an external or social stigma in not having a job
>>>and therefore not earning the money necessary to support one's self
>>>and/or family. There is also an internal or psychological stigma in not
>>>having a job in the midst of a working population.
>>>
>>>2. The phrase "Basic Income" has both an equalitarian and welfare sound
>>>to it. It implies the minimum amount necessary to survive in minimal
>>>housing and in an environment where there is minimal opportunity to
>>>improve one's status.
>>>
>>>3. A Basic Income not only implies, but would seem to demand, that a
>>>second party will dictate what constitutes a Basic Income for everyone -
>>>not taking into account all the factors that make each of us different
>>>from the other in regard to our needs.
>>>
>>>4. The phrase Basic Income is intimately related to the idea of Basic
>>>Needs which, in many person's eyes, means only those needs that are
>>>necessary for physical survival. This is psychologically and socially
>>>unacceptable for many reasons but especially because it reenforces the
>>>social and economic status quo by minimally defusing the potential to
>>>rebel or riot.
>>>
>>>I don't think it is necessary to spell out (what I think are) the
>>>advantages of a Guarantee Annual Income. They are, in effect, the
>>>corralaries of the above. The problem may be illustrated by a simple
>>>example.
>>>
>>>On the one hand we have 18-year olds out of school and on their own, with
>>>no particular skills and without a job.
>>>On the other hand we have a couple with two school-age children, one who
>>>has been taking dancing lessons for some time. They live in a house with
>>>a mortgage and have the usual car and credit card payments to meet. One
>>>of the wage-earners, through no fault of their own, has been let-go by
>>>the company he or she has been working for for the past several years.
>>>
>>>Please comment.
>>>
>>>Robert
>>>
>>>Robert Rosenstein
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>________________________________________________________________
>>>YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
>>>Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
>>>Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
>>>http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
>>
>>______________________________________________________
>>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>>
>
>
>
>
>
