Thank you, Arthur. I recall that Segal did mention Friedman. Like Friedman,
his argument was essentially that there is no advantage "in hiring armies of
bureaucrats to dispense food stamps, energy stamps, day care stamps and rent
subsidies" if there is a cheaper, less controlling, and more efficient way of
keeping the poor housed and fed. What he also suggested is that we have a
longstanding stereotype to overcome -- viewing the poor as welfare bums unable
to look after themselves.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Arthur Cordell
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' ;
[email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 9:42 AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] RE: Meeting on social rights
issues
The Other Milton Friedman: A Conservative With a Social Welfare Program - New
York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html
excerpt..
Milton Friedman who died last week at 94, was the patron saint of
small-government conservatism. Conservatives who invoke his name in defense of
Social Security privatization and other cutbacks in the social safety net might
thus be surprised to learn that he was also the architect of the most
successful social welfare program of all time.
Market forces can accomplish wonderful things, he realized, but they cannot
ensure a distribution of income that enables all citizens to meet basic
economic needs. His proposal, which he called the negative income tax, was to
replace the multiplicity of existing welfare programs with a single cash
transfer - say, $6,000 - to every citizen. A family of four with no market
income would thus receive an annual payment from the I.R.S. of $24,000. For
each dollar the family then earned, this payment would be reduced by some
fraction - perhaps 50 percent. A family of four earning $12,000 a year, for
example, would receive a net supplement of $18,000 (the initial $24,000 less
the $6,000 tax on its earnings).
Mr. Friedman's proposal was undoubtedly motivated in part by his concern for
the welfare of the least fortunate. But he was above all a pragmatist, and he
emphasized the superiority of the negative income tax over conventional welfare
programs on purely practical grounds. If the main problem of the poor is that
they have too little money, he reasoned, the simplest and cheapest solution is
to give them some more. He saw no advantage in hiring armies of bureaucrats to
dispense food stamps, energy stamps, day care stamps and rent subsidies.
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 9:20 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] RE: Meeting on social rights
issues
Thank you for responding, Eleanor. I didn't know that the GAI had been tried
in Manitoba and Segal didn't mention it. What he did say, however, is that it
costs some $240,000 to keep a person in prison for a year. Providing a family
with income of just above the low income cut-off would be considerably less
than that. Indeed, you might be able to provide a GAI to five or six families
for the price of one prisoner. However, I do appreciate that our present
government is into building prisons and incarceration, not the social
well-being of poor families.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Eleanor Glor
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 11:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Ottawadissenters] RE: [Futurework] Meeting on social rights
issues
Thanks for sharing this, Ed.
Here's my thoughts on your questions:
1. If it made that much sense and could readily be implemented, why
hasn't it been done?
It was done. A demonstration project was run in Manitoba for about ten
years during the 1970s. It was not implemented nationally for two reasons. (1)
It was very costly. (2) During the 1970s the Canadian and western economies
took a dive because of two oil crises, involving big increases in the price of
oil. Since then there have been cuts in taxes to the wealthy and little
increase in salaries for the middle class, translating into stagnant government
revenues and purchasing power. I can't think of any new social programs that
have been funded since then.
2. Why isn't Segal pushing very hard instead of just making speeches?
I think he is pushing hard but that the current Conservative government isn't
listening to him. I have trouble imagining a scenario in which the
Conservatives would fund a GIA. If any new money was made available, it would
go to the deserving poor e.g. the mentally ill (the news today does not hold
much promise, though).
Eleanor
Snip,snip
__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (5)
Recent Activity:
Visit Your Group
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use.
__,_._,__________________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
