babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Basic Income 2: The Entitling!

101 replies [Last post]

Comments

Grandpa_Bill
Offline
Joined: Apr 25 2009

In another thread, Gaian wrote:  Come come, chaps. Something of value, not this painful back and forth. Please.

Is there nothing else of value to be said about the subject of this thread:  GAI, in particular, or Entitlements, in general?  Perhaps not!

Some feel that saying Hugh Segal supported GAI ought be enough to consign the subject of GAI to the trash can.  Perhaps.  But if so, then what is to be done?  And by doing something, I mean something other than commenting on Babble threads and reading Rabble articles and blogs.

Do either of you two folks have a short list of What is to be done? things for the people who read what you have written here?

 


Gaian
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2011
You're the first one to ask, GB. But as for your opening criticism taken from repeating my criticism elsewhere: "Come come, chaps. Something of value, not this painful back and forth. Please." If you are equating the work, the reading and thought that went into this exchange with that other one you're quoting, I'm afraid that expanding on this to make " a short list of What is to be done? things for the people who read what you have written here," would only wind up the basis for more snarky comment.Please offer up some insights from your own reading, studies that agree/desagree with some of the offerings here. Some areas of ingterest, work you've read. RTTG developed thoughtful and complete (not from the back of an envelope) ideas, presenting a conclusion that, unfortunately, could only have been instituted in the first decade after war's end, a half century back. Capitalism's moved on. Or do you disagree with that, GB? (Clearly, the name "tory" has brought forth an old Hugh Segal follower, but extracting meaning from the good senator's thoughts on climate change and our collective future could be elusive...or have you heard more than I have from him in that subject area?) :) Or perhaps you believe, with RTTG, that that is all just sowing confusion and unnecessarily complicating an otherwise logical and neat answer to the problem?

Gaian
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2011
Happy reading, RTTG. It's all you lack. :)

toochewed
Offline
Joined: Feb 16 2012

You're the first one to ask, GB. - Gaian 

 

Excuse Me ...


Red Tory Tea Girl
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2010

Gaian, I've asked you before to piss right off with the assertions that I'm not well-read, as though I haven't gone chasing after obscure policy analysis on my own time for the last decade.

I'm quite frankly done speaking to a self-made man who worships at the altar of his creator.


Grandpa_Bill
Offline
Joined: Apr 25 2009

Gaian wrote:
I'm afraid that expanding on this to make " a short list of What is to be done? things for the people who read what you have written here," would only wind up the basis for more snarky comment.

Not from me, Gaian, will you get any snarky comments.  I've asked my quesiton because I'm intetrested to hear some ideas on the subject, namely, What is to be done?  Neither you nor RTTG are under an obligation to respond and I won't be upset if neither of you do--why would I be upset--but I hope that both of you do:  I asked the question sincerely and I would treat any response by either of you similarly.

Or is it that there really is nothing to be done?  I hadn't considered that would be your belief, but perhaps I ought read between the lines.


Red Tory Tea Girl
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2010

To what end? I've proposed an increase in progressivity of income taxes, a Guaranteed Annual Income, which makes carbon and consumption taxes not-regressive, which makes organization easier, makes negotiation on an individual basis easier... what do you want to accomplish, Grandpa_Bill? At the moment I'm a volunteer gun-for-hire when it comes to policy.


Grandpa_Bill
Offline
Joined: Apr 25 2009

Hey, RTTG, I have perhaps misspoken.

In asking, What is to be done, I meant something like this:  For readers of this thread who agree with your proposal for a GAI-type measure, what might they do?  How might they support the idea?  What might they do to move it forward?  Perhaps there are GAI-promoting initiatives already underway that could do with their money, their efforts, their participation?  Do you know of such or do you have suggestions for starting same?

That's about what I was trying to ask.


toochewed
Offline
Joined: Feb 16 2012

RTTG answered that in the last thread Grandpa . There isn t much going on . Some Senator from kingston tabled something about it in 2004 . What was his name ... A tory . A red Tory too :+) Thats if I remember correctly ... g night 

 


Grandpa_Bill
Offline
Joined: Apr 25 2009

toochewed wrote:

RTTG answered that in the last thread Grandpa . There isn t much going on . Some Senator from kingston tabled something about it in 2004 . What was his name ... A tory . A red Tory too :+) Thats if I remember correctly ... g night 

 

Sen. Hugh Segal.  He has been plumping for GAI since . . . .  As recently as 2011 (?), Segal was interviewed on CBC Sunday Morning by Michael Enright, when he spoke (once again) about the Mincome Project:  Manitoba Basic Guaranteed Annual Income Experiment.

I have found this link for GAI.  Does anyone have something more?

 


Red Tory Tea Girl
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2010

I am going to try to do some writing and advocacy myself on the issue, though it's been hard to pull myself away from trans topics. But yes, at the moment, the movement for a GAI is a bit moribund. This is a discussion for the inevitable next crisis of economic liberalism. That's something hard-left capitalists and democratic socialists can agree on, at least.

 

Well, it would've been evitable, but we got a liberal instead of a soft social democrat calling himself a liberal in the White House again.


toochewed
Offline
Joined: Feb 16 2012

http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/2010/12/december-19-2010.html HERE S THE LINK TO The cbc sunday morning show with hugh segal . nope he doesn t talk about the manitoba experiment but does offer a potential timetable for advocacy . 2013/14 when there is a reassessment of federal transfer payments .... if i find the program you have mentioned i will post 

 

 


toochewed
Offline
Joined: Feb 16 2012

http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/2009/10/october-18-2009.html#hour1 Ok here it is ... Mincome and hugh segal Also Ron Hikel was the Executive Director of Mincome. He now works for US Congressman Eric Massa and was in our studio in Washington, DC. Evelyn Forget is a professor in the Community Health Sciences Department at the University of Manitoba. She's the one who tracked down the Mincome papers, decades after the conclusion of the study. And she's completed her first analysis of the data. She was in our Winnipeg studio.  

Lol first analysis  of the data after 30 years ....


toochewed
Offline
Joined: Feb 16 2012

Starts at minute 8 i believe 

 


toochewed
Offline
Joined: Feb 16 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRh-gD8nT3w&feature=related this is a film about GAI (revenu de base ) made in germany and translated to french  the link is to part five where the fiscality is discussed .This film is what turned me on to the idea of a GAI . Beautiful piece of work . I would like to translate it if it could be used ... 

 


toochewed
Offline
Joined: Feb 16 2012

RTTG never answered me if she watched it . It sounds so simple .... 

 


Gaian
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2011
Very useful that library of Sunday Editions eh, tc? So you think that the GAI idea would sell, politically, in Canada? And the daunting fiscal situation is explained away to your satisfaction? And it being dependent on increased production and consumption, economic growth, would not exacerbate the problem of climate change? Just a couple of thoughts off the old top... :)

Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Just imagine what could be done by scrapping shit like the F35 purchase, corporate tax cuts, etc....


Red Tory Tea Girl
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2010

Actually, Gaian, with some broad-based tax increases, yes, a GAI is really fiscally possible, either as an expansionary or contractionary policy based on the size of the initial payments and the timeframe for revenue raisers.

30% corporate tax rate would yield about 1.5% of GDP, a flat 10% GST would yield 7.5%, not to mention the tax savings from dropping TFSAs or special treatment of investment income or introducing a property tax. Plus a GAI's going to be about 1/3rd paid for with the patchwork paternalistic social programs it replaces, like EI that doesn't kick in if you're forced out of a job and can't demonstrate constructive dismissal.


Red Tory Tea Girl
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2010

Sadly, toochewed, I'm a unilingual anglophone, (something I really do need to change) so the German film won't be of much help for me.

And yes, I've seen Sen. Segal's work, and it's pretty impressive. Seems to be the one big entitlement that appeals to the economically liberal. I think they like the idea of because it solves much of the problem of the human cost of a competition-based economy. I know that's why I like it too. It wouldn't matter much that my newest employer decided to turf me when I complained about a hostile work environment within the first 90 days. (Better to fire the mouthy trans chick you gave a pass to during the first interview than confront the fact that some of your qualified workers are spending their day talking about who has DSL ('dick-sucking-lips') or getting a blow job while playing a videogame, which, honestly, sounds like a waste of a good blowjob, but whatever.)

GAI protects people from discrimination that would never be sufficiently demonstrable as to be actionable. Our current system doesn't.


Grandpa_Bill
Offline
Joined: Apr 25 2009

Thank you, RTTG & TC et. al. for GAI links and comments.


toochewed
Offline
Joined: Feb 16 2012

I don'T know Gaian but the German film i posted a link to proposes a system based on a One Tax system . The TVA . A GAI would be given to ALL citezens . Damn Im not a fiscalist . I'll translate it . Or find an english version and get back to you . part 5 and 6 have graphiques that explain the fiscality . Even if you don t speak french ....


Red Tory Tea Girl
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2010

But yes, to pay for it, off the top of my head? Raising the GST to 10% without exemptions, which provinces could lower accordingly since they'd be getting per-student grants for education, would raise 7.5% of GDP, cutting interpersonal transfers would save 5.5% of GDP, cutting our current extreme poverty supports in exchange for something more generous would save 3.5%, as referenced in the previous thread, and given that federal-provincial transfer payments amount to 4% of GDP ($60 billion), we could claw them back from the provinces, or reorganize equalization in some way. A carbon tax of $50/tonne would raise 1.75% of GDP. We spend 1.5% of GDP on the military which could be phased down to 1%, saving 0.5%. Raising corporate taxes to 30% would raise 1.5% of GDP. Reintroducing an estate tax at the same rate should raise 1.45% of GDP...

That puts us at 7.5+5.5+3.5+1.75+0.5+1.5+1.45 or 21.7% of GDP...

We can raise the next 3.3% by raising income taxes on a 2,3,4 scale: 2 basis points for everyone earning under per capita GDP to three basis points for everyone earning between 1 and 5 times per capita GDP to four basis points for everyone earning more than 5 times per capita GDP.

I don't have the parliamentary budget officer to score this one for me, but we're talking about $50 billion in income tax revenue... or just running a 3.3% deficit as stimulation and letting the increase in output shrink the GAI as a percentage of GDP over the next ten years. we're slated for real growth of about 3%, so in 10 years a GAI starting at 25% of per-capita GDP that is indexed half to per capita nominal GDP and half to inflation will take up 21.6% of economic output, while at the same time having increased by over 16%.

It's pretty doable in our current fiscal situation, Gaian.


toochewed
Offline
Joined: Feb 16 2012

rockandroll. Trans or not I,m in :+)

 


toochewed
Offline
Joined: Feb 16 2012

bla bla bla lol

 

 


Red Tory Tea Girl
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2010

toochewed wrote:

rockandroll. Trans or not I,m in :+)

 

 

I don't even know what that means... is that a reference to me being trans and if so what would it say about my fiscal proposals?


toochewed
Offline
Joined: Feb 16 2012

It means it sounds like you know what you re talking about . Not that I know what I,M talking about ... Yes I guess it was a reference about you being trans . It kinda hit home to me that YOU are trans and not just a champion of the cause (LGTB) . It means I couldn t give a rats arse if you are Trans or Gay or an Alien . Anyone that talks sense is cool to me 

 


Red Tory Tea Girl
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2010

A wonderful thought in Libérale et libertaire... odd that their tagline is the opposite of one of my favorite quotations, by Holmes... anyway to the grist!

Quote:
The Zwolinski/Tomasi essay makes it clear that "recognition" plays an important in who "qualifies" for justice. They propose a rather high barrier of entry to qualify for being "poor." Evidently, "Poor" excludes the social rift-raft and the unemployed. To be properly poor means to be employed. But this is a silly and obviously artificial exclusionary construction. An obvious solution to maximize the condition of our properly defined "poor" would be to simply to maximize the barrier of entry to qualify to work. A "social justice claim" reduces to a protectionist claim, which is often the case. This type of protectionism becomes particularly insidious when you consider that who is legally "recognized" to work in a National Security State becomes a matter of public debate of an overlapping consensus between Rush Limbaugh and Daily Kos. This is hardly justice; rather, it's a moral perversion.

My contention, to reiterate, is that under any system that requires work for a basic standard of living, we inherently divide ourselves into deserving and undeserving poor, and that that problem would be intrinsically worse without the state, where exclusion becomes a more powerful weapon, meaning that those who don't work aren't just denied a sufficient share of the running surplus that was produced by the work of those long since dead. It is the continual demand of those who appoint themselves advocates for the proletarian to expropriate the progress of their dead relatives, every tool, every innovation, every invention, every design tweak, every long-lived piece of infrastructure built, every disease cured, in the form of higher wages, instead of allowing even a portion of that surplus sufficient to allow someone to survive and guarantee future productivity is not sacrificed, to be evenly distributed.


Red Tory Tea Girl
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2010

Oh, here's something that some of you might be familiar with: How's a focus on employment going to end the practice of landlords illegally asking for employment information before you get a home? Their only rationalle is that you need to be able to demonstrate that you can pay the rent... A GAI will, for housing somewhere-near-affordably priced, eliminate that. Three people want a three-bedroom? Done. This security will lower rent because landlords will be less able to plausibly demand a risk premium due to a disruption of income forcing smaller landlords out of business.

Income security. It's a good thing.

PS: I hate the term landlord... it's as though they naturally expect rentserfs in reply.


Boze
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

I don't know how much it will really do in that department in many cases, since from what I understand, the profit margins are often quite small or non-existent for the smaller landlords.

It is a feudal relationship though. I've always found it bizarre that we claim to have abolished feudalism and live in a free society, yet we still have bosses and landlords and most people work in workplaces owned by somebody else, and live in buildings owned by somebody else. Freedom to choose your masters I suppose. So much wealth has been redistributed upwards over the past century, especially the past twenty years, and I don't see an easy solution to that except to start directly redistributing wealth downwards. 

One of the largest growing demographics for the foreseeable future is going to be the unemployed. According to Bob Simpson BC's forestry industry is going to shed 12000 jobs in the next few years. Raising the minimum wage isn't going to help these people. Making it easier to unionize isn't going to help these people. And there is no chance of the government taking all of these people on and putting them to work. What is to be done?


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments