"Basic income" idea worthy of support: wealth funds?

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jacob Richter
"Basic income" idea worthy of support: wealth funds?

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/social-wealth-fund/

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/social-wealth-fund-alaska-peoples-policy-...

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/28/17774334/social-wealth-fund-bruenig-solida...

 

I have come out against universal basic income in the past.  However, is the proposal above a better take on "basic income"?

I would start off by stating that the left wonks should get rid of the word "basic" from this proposal, whether "basic income" or "basic dividend."  As already argued in 2017, "basic income" amounts detached from wealth funds would be inadequate (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/12/universal-basic-income-inequality-work).  Furthermore, from the Jacobin article at the beginning:

Quote:
It would also avoid fueling a push for “welfare reform” by starting small and rising over time — nobody could make the case that the dividend could immediately “replace” unemployment benefits or disability insurance.

Get rid of the word "basic" and twin the public / sovereign / solidarity wealth fund proposal with a job guarantee.

MegB

I think the fundamental issue against a BIP isn't what it's called or how it's funded, but rather that it feeds into the capitalist system whereby employers won't have to pay workers a living wage because there is no incentive with a BIP. Corporate welfare, in other words.

Even vocal critics of BI, like John Clarke (OCAP) have come out against what Ford has done to people who are part of the now-cancelled BI pilot program in Ontario. What needs to happen is the introduction of a minimum wage that is a living wage, with better protections for workers that go beyond paid wages (enough hours, benefits, etc.).

Federal and provincial programs that support injured workers, people with disabilities and others who, for whatever reason, cannot work or have been unable to find employment that allows them to live with dignity need to be overhauled. Federal and provincial social programs existing are punative, humiliating, corrupt and do not in any way meet existing needs. EI recipients cannot find work and pay basic expenses on 55 per cent of what they were making. Levels need to be brought back to, at the very least, previous levels of 65 per cent or more, and the feds need to stop plundering the surplus created by denying the benefits workers pay for. People with disabilities should not be living below the poverty level, injured workers need to receive the benefits they deserve (and WSIB needs a huge overhaul, to stop denying claims, ignoring doctors' recommendations, etc.) and welfare recipients should not be subjected to constant and humiliating processes to receive a benefit that fails to meet their basic needs.

Basic income programs are a quick fix, a panacea for the complex problems associated with neo-liberal capitalism and grossly underfunded social programs. Employers must be forced to pay living wages through legislation. Taxation must be fair and equitable, no more handouts and tax breaks for the wealthiest Canadians, and there needs to be an end to the demonization and punishment of the poor and working poor.  An end to the pilfering of the public purse to support the endless greed of the 1% at the expense of the most vulnerable.

 

Jacob Richter

MegB wrote:
I think the fundamental issue against a BIP isn't what it's called or how it's funded, but rather that it feeds into the capitalist system whereby employers won't have to pay workers a living wage because there is no incentive with a BIP. Corporate welfare, in other words.

Somehow, I forgot to repeat this woefully underrated point (I did post this years ago, but earlier this week I forgot).  Damn!

Quote:
Federal and provincial social programs existing are punative, humiliating, corrupt and do not in any way meet existing needs.

I can't disagree.  Even the likes of Nixon raised eyebrows over what would be termed the poverty trap.

lagatta4

Yes, here at least, people can be cut off welfare if they take more than two university or college courses - although three is typically viewed as part-time. People should be ENCOURAGED to use times when they can't find work to improve their skills and general education level, not discouraged.