They would just crank up zero income to $10,000 and the rest of us who
didn't qualify for some reason would have negative income and "poor houses."
Then we would get food as an incentive to work, just like the Bolshiviks.
Or they would treat it like welfare and create a whole new bureaucracy to
check on whether we were wasting it or not.   So many opportunities to judge
others and function as gatekeepers to heaven.   You don't believe me, check
the one place they could try out their social theories, the reserves.   That
worked great!    Now on to everyone. 

 

REH

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 8:41 PM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION';
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Meeting on social rights issues

 

http://www3.sympatico.ca/francislerner/

 

 

BASIC INCOME/Canada

 

Note that Sally Lerner who co-hosts FW is a major force in the basic income
discussions in Canada and abroad.

 

Arthur

 

 

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 7:56 PM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION';
[email protected]
Subject: [Futurework] Meeting on social rights issues

 

I attended a meeting this morning that dealt with whether issues such as
access to food and housing are human rights.  The speakers, Leilani Farha of
the Centre for Equality Rights in Accomodation and Bruce Porter of the
Social Rights Advocacy Centre, argued very strongly that food and housing
were indeed human rights and should be recognized as such.  They were
followed by a strongly argued presentation by Senator Hugh Segal (Canadian,
not American, Senate) on the need for a Guaranteed Annual Income, which, he
argued, could easily be provided via the income tax system.  If we had a
GAI, Segal argued, we wouldn't have to worry about public housing, food
banks, etc.  

 

All very well, but if it made that much sense and could readily be
implemented, why hasn't it been done?  There wasn't time to ask him that,
however, because he had to dash back to Parliament Hill.  Segal is a
Conservative, though appointed by Paul Martin, a Liberal Prime Minister, not
Stephen Harper, the current Conservative P.M.  He does, however, carry a lot
of political weight, so why isn't he pushing very hard instead of just
making speeches?  Maybe he is, but we can't know it because of the fog
surrounding our government. 

 

Ed

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to