Interesting Harry, To make that work they would have to go back into their mother's belly and be born again, as Cherokees.
REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Fw: Reality Internet > Ed, > > The problem is that most Basic Income ideas want to take from the rich and > give to the poor. As I said, if the rich earned it, we have no right to > their earnings. If they are rich because the government gave them a > lucrative privilege, the privilege should be removed. > > It shouldn't be supported and then taxed. That's ridiculous. > > As you know, Rent (in the Classical sense) is a creation of the community > that finds its way into private hands. If it were to be collected and given > back to the community that created it, not only would it make sense, it > would be the moral thing to do. > > Some Georgists place this "Citizen's Dividend" high on their agenda. > > All figures are highly suspect and my arithmetic is more so. There is a > total land value in the US of about $30 trillion. At 5% we can capitalize > down to an annual income of $1.5 trillion - to be divided among (say) 300 > million Americans. > > That would seem to work out at about $5,000 for every man, woman, and > child. Let's halve it for much of it is land speculation. So, a nuclear > family of four would get $10,000 Citizen's Dividend - without taking a > penny from the people who earned their wealth. > > Yet, this isn't so important. What is important is to stop the hemorrhaging > from the economy caused by heavy speculation in the basic source of all our > production. > > Harry > > ---------------------------------------------- > > Ed wrote: > > >Ray, surely the idea is not to redistribute everything. Surely all that is > >needed is some form of redistribution that ensures that everyone in a > >society has enough to live on if they happen to lose their jobs or are > >unable to work for some other reason. Unlike welfare, it should be > >something that is so integral to society that no one could be labeled or > >stigmatized because they make use of it. If it existed, we wouldn't need > >things like welfare, disability payments, or employment insurance. On the > >part of society, the operating moral principle would be that every citizen > >is entitled to it. On the part of the citizen, the operating moral > >principle would be to use it only when one had to. Some people would have > >to use it permanently, but hopefully most only temporarily. It's like the > >basic income proposals Sally Lerner used to promote on this list. > > > >Ed Weick > > > > **************************************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 > http://home.attbi.com/~haledward > **************************************************** > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.484 / Virus Database: 282 - Release Date: 5/27/2003 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
