> >> We don't prevent the healthy from having Medicare, for we >> accept that ill health may come at any time to anyone. So too, poverty. > > Thanks for making my point. Medicare pays if and when illness comes, > but your GBI pays always, also to those who don't need it. To remain > in your analogy, you propose that Medicare pays the same monthly support > to patients in intensive hospital care and to perfectly healthy persons. > Makes no sense, and is unaffordable. Medicare can only (barely) afford > paying for necessary treatments, and the same principle applies to welfare > payments.
Thomas Response Well, Chris, you got me - sloppy analogy. Let me try a different one. We have a benefit for children called the Child Tax Benefit. Depending on the age of the child and the number of children in the family - every parent is eligible and I would say there is a 99% participation rate. Now note that their is no income eligibility. The millionaire's child is as eligible as the pauper's child. However, this has to be declared as income on the yearly income tax filing and for low income families they get to keep all the benefit of about $2000 per child while the affluent having to add this to their income find that the benefit is taxed back. The end result is the poor get the benefit and the rich - while they are rich and it is not always a permanent state, end up not getting the benefit. I see a way for a Basic Income to work in which everyone gets a monthly cheque or weekly and for the poor, they get to keep the Basic Income, while the more affluent find that it is revenue neutral in the sense they get the benefit on a monthly/weekly basis to use but at the end of the year, they would repay the benefit while paying there taxes > > >> What Basic Income is attempting to do, is to put a floor on poverty. That >> floor would prevent a thousand ills. Homelessness, inadequate diet, lack > of >> work schemes, an assured base income could be used if you wanted to go > back >> to school, build a house or write a poem, etc. > > Going back to school or building a house with a GBI ?? How many thousand > dollars per month are you thinking of ? Thomas: If you follow the Basic Income web addresses that Sally posted a few days ago and went to the United States web site, you will see them talking $25,000 a year. A few years ago, I worked out a Basic Income based on the governments budget with a figure of $10,000 per person per year. So a single person on their own would get $10,000, a couple would have an income of $20,000 and a family of eight would have $80,000. So you can see that both ideas are not talking about a starvation rate but one that actually fulfils the function of a Basic Income. I know the average knee jerk reaction to the family of eight in that many women would opt for 8 children and $80,000 a year. So what? It is damn hard work to raise eight children and I have read statistics that each child costs the parent $250,000 to raise a child in a middle class environment and through University. If that be true, then $80,000 a year begins to seem sensible. Less is what we could describe as poverty. > >> It would also release a tremendous amount of creativity, life skills and >> energy that is now tied up in trying to keep your head above water. The >> poor are not dumb or stupid but they are time and opportunity stressed > to >> the nth degree. > > These problems should be addressed at the roots, not by tinkering with > symptoms while perpetuating the causes. E.g., abolish injust things like > heredity, and tax bad things like pollution instead of productivity. > But instead, taxing productivity is what the GBI crowd suggests. > Lazy heirs and polluters must be laughing all the way to the bank -- > instead of ending their abuse, you want to give them even more money > for nothing. Thomas: I think a Basic Income does represent going to the root of the problem which is an adequate redistribution of wealth so that all citizens benefit from the wealth of the country - not just the successful capitalists or overpaid executives. And that not everyone has the potential of opportunity but that everyone also has the means to fulfil the potential of opportunity. As George said, much wealth goes unused because a person doesn't have the capital. The idea of "rents" also had within it, the concept of maximizing the use of land, buildings, machinery on a rental - i.e. affordable basis rather than the necessity of large amounts of capital. Well, enough for this early morning. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde > > As for creativity, the proverb is "necessity is the mother of invention", > not "welfare cheques to those who don't need them are the mother of > invention"... > > Chris > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword > "igve". > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
