|
A Universal
Basic Income
If you know someone who is unemployed, underemployed,
or without job security, then you may want to look into an idea whose time is
coming: the idea of a universal basic income or UBI. Polls
have shown that a majority of the general population in a number
of countries find themselves unable to accept the idea of a UBI.
Raised to revere the work ethic they fear that a UBI, if set at a
level to permit a decent life, would reward idleness and create
legions of free riders. The fact that empirical studies
undertaken in Canada and the U.S. suggest that the incentive to
work is not significantly weakened by income security hardly
seems to make a dent in such entrenched attitudes. These
attitudes often find expression in the phrase, "I don't believe
in handouts."
It's essential to understand that a UBI in no
way rules out full-time, adequately paid employment, but rather
softens the loss of its availability to all. A UBI provides
security, not affluence. Moreover, if it could be shown that the
well-to-do receive "handouts" – although they're not called
handouts, and they take forms that disguise their true nature
even from most of those who benefit from them – far in
excess of anything describable as a UBI, would you be prepared to
reconsider your opinion? On what basis would you deny to the poor
what society unhesitatingly, though perhaps without complete
understanding, grants to the rich?
At www.basicincome.com you will
find the case for a UBI, as well as a summary of the simple UBI
model for Canada presented in the book Basic Income: Economic
Security for all Canadians by S. Lerner, C. M. A. Clark, W. R.
Needham, 1999. You will also find a fact sheet entitled `Canadian
Economic Data.' A study of this data should convince you that the
rich receive very generous handouts indeed (courtesy of tax
loopholes and, more subtly but more importantly, the system of
money creation known as fractional reserve banking).
The great and growing economic inequality in
the world today should be seen as a very dangerous ongoing
crisis. But we shouldn't waste time on anything as breathtakingly naive as
socialism. Private property is our best guarantee of freedom and
we must reject anything that undermines it. Nor should we blame
the rich as such. Could the rich and poor change places we can
safely assume that the poor would behave exactly like the rich,
perhaps worse. If the rich take advantage of the fact that our
economy and tax system are structured and managed in their favour, it's not
because they're rich, but because they're human –
all too human.
Capitalism is based on the
principle of competition. People must work hard in order to
succeed. But many people, through no fault of their own, are
ill-equipped to live in such a competitive world. If we think it
wrong to discriminate on the basis of race, creed or colour, why
do we tolerate economic discrimination on the basis of energy,
academic aptitude, or the motivating desire for wealth? It's up
to the victims of our economy, and their sympathizers in the
middle class, to point to the obvious injustice in much of modern
economic practice, as well as to the historic change underway in
the nature of work. Though it may be delayed the day is coming
when our society will agree with John Kenneth Galbraith,
`Everybody should be guaranteed a decent basic income. A rich
country...can well afford to keep everybody out of poverty.'
|
|
A Universal
Basic Income
If you know someone who is unemployed, underemployed,
or without job security, then you may want to look into an idea whose time is
coming: the idea of a universal basic income or UBI. Polls
have shown that a majority of the general population in a number
of countries find themselves unable to accept the idea of a UBI.
Raised to revere the work ethic they fear that a UBI, if set at a
level to permit a decent life, would reward idleness and create
legions of free riders. The fact that empirical studies
undertaken in Canada and the U.S. suggest that the incentive to
work is not significantly weakened by income security hardly
seems to make a dent in such entrenched attitudes. These
attitudes often find expression in the phrase, "I don't believe
in handouts."
It's essential to understand that a UBI in no
way rules out full-time, adequately paid employment, but rather
softens the loss of its availability to all. A UBI provides
security, not affluence. Moreover, if it could be shown that the
well-to-do receive "handouts" – although they're not called
handouts, and they take forms that disguise their true nature
even from most of those who benefit from them – far in
excess of anything describable as a UBI, would you be prepared to
reconsider your opinion? On what basis would you deny to the poor
what society unhesitatingly, though perhaps without complete
understanding, grants to the rich?
At www.basicincome.com you will
find the case for a UBI, as well as a summary of the simple UBI
model for Canada presented in the book Basic Income: Economic
Security for all Canadians by S. Lerner, C. M. A. Clark, W. R.
Needham, 1999. You will also find a fact sheet entitled `Canadian
Economic Data.' A study of this data should convince you that the
rich receive very generous handouts indeed (courtesy of tax
loopholes and, more subtly but more importantly, the system of
money creation known as fractional reserve banking).
The great and growing economic inequality in
the world today should be seen as a very dangerous ongoing
crisis. But we shouldn't waste time on anything as breathtakingly naive as
socialism. Private property is our best guarantee of freedom and
we must reject anything that undermines it. Nor should we blame
the rich as such. Could the rich and poor change places we can
safely assume that the poor would behave exactly like the rich,
perhaps worse. If the rich take advantage of the fact that our
economy and tax system are structured and managed in their favour, it's not
because they're rich, but because they're human –
all too human.
Capitalism is based on the
principle of competition. People must work hard in order to
succeed. But many people, through no fault of their own, are
ill-equipped to live in such a competitive world. If we think it
wrong to discriminate on the basis of race, creed or colour, why
do we tolerate economic discrimination on the basis of energy,
academic aptitude, or the motivating desire for wealth? It's up
to the victims of our economy, and their sympathizers in the
middle class, to point to the obvious injustice in much of modern
economic practice, as well as to the historic change underway in
the nature of work. Though it may be delayed the day is coming
when our society will agree with John Kenneth Galbraith,
`Everybody should be guaranteed a decent basic income. A rich
country...can well afford to keep everybody out of poverty.'
|