Sally,
I am philosophically opposed to a "Basic Income", for it seems to indicate
that some people are getting an unfair and even criminal share of the pie,
and that somehow we should take it back and share it out.
As radical centrist, I would suggest that a better direction for effort
would be to tackle those privileged people directly by ending the privilege.
In the absence of doing the right thing, most basic income suggestions seem
to be essentially welfare payments - particularly if they are not given out
equally to all
Such as Conall's suggestion of an : " 'Enterprise Allowance'. This would be
given to all of working age (16-70 these days) who are actively engaged
doing something useful."
If a Basic Income is a right - everyone should get it. Does a baby have
less right than an adult? If I work only enough to stay healthy - then hike
in the mountains - am I not engaged in something useful, therefore unfit
for a share?"
We shouldn't get bitter about such things as:
CONALL: "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?"
The so-called "ECONOMY" doesn't measure non-productive occurrences. Neither
Tiger Wood, nor my wife, directly add to the total of production when they
have finished their day's work.
We can make up scenarios such as Tiger helping to sell gold clubs
(production) - or my wife's successful work to keep me healthy so I can get
to the factory every day - but their jobs are essentially service. Service
doesn't add extra widgets, though in advanced economies service takes a
greater and more important part of our energies.
If there are economic measurements to be made, counted should be the extra
widgets, not the activities of the hairdresser. However, the only reason
for calculating the GNP, or the DNP, or the CPI, or any of these statistics
is governmental.
They are of little interest to anyone else, though perhaps they are the
meat and drink of economists, who continually are searching for things on
which to waste their time.
Does anyone ever think that they can find a tiny fractional percentage
increase in (say) the GNP from thousands - perhaps tens of thousands of
measurements. When next month they tell us the GNP is increasing at 3%, it
means that from all their sources, they've detected an 0.25% change.
Baah!
However, one tiny gleam of light shows itself:
CONALL: "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!)"
If here is anything that really belongs to us all, it must be the
electromagnetic spectrum. In the US the Feds split it into sections for AM
and FM radio, and TV Channels - then give these bits of the spectrum away.
These are great gifts that achieve a sales value often exceeding $100
million. Lyndon Johnson couldn't get a TV licence - he was a Federal
employee. But Lady Bird could - and did. It would be of interest to see
what kind of multi-millionaire she became because of that simple piece of
paper.
The value of the Channel location is created by the people who surround the
station. It makes sense that they should get it back. In fact it is an
example of simple justice that the value they create returns to them.
In similar fashion, city land-values are created by the people of the city.
Without people, city land would be worth nothing. So, again, these
land-values, whose market value can become astronomical, are appropriate as
a source of value to be recaptured by the people who created them.
Yet these values are not a tax on the productive - a major criticism of
"Basic Income". They are simply an example of a community value being
recaptured by those who created it.
Georgists who support this thinking call the recapture a "Citizens' Dividend".
Looks a lot like a "Basic Income" to me - but with a distribution that
seems just .
I'll post this on the LandTheory list. Maybe you'll get some people who
will answer your questions.
Harry
_________________________________________________________________
Sally wrote:
>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 Rosenstein
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
