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  (over)
 
 
 
 
 

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  (over)
 

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  (over)
 
 
 
 
 

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  (over)
 

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.'
 
 
 
 

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.'
 

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.'
 
 
 
 

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.'