- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 9,594
- Reaction score
- 2,072
- Location
- France
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
From the Economist: Why the world should adopt a basic income
Excerpt:
In an era of rentier capitalism… [a basic income] would provide an anchor for a fairer income-distribution system. And, in countries with high crime-rates it could have a profound effect upon criminal activity. From a Pew Report here:
Rentier-capitalism, is "franglais" - that is rentier in French means (in English) "a person living on income from property or investments". You know, uh ... people like Donald Dork and his entire family.
Though, of course, they like to call themselves working "businessmen and businesswomen". So, pray tell, what's in a name? (Fecal-matter smells odious like all fecal-matter ... ;^)
It is almost never a real question of "How much you got", but "How you got it" ...
NB: Note that in the definition of Basic Income, the key criterion is "legal resident in the community". Meaning one was born with national citizenship or acquired it legally. It does not mean the guy/gal who just made it through the fence from some foreign country (who probably deserves asylum but not necessarily citizenship).
Excerpt:
A BASIC income (BI) is defined as a modest, regular payment to every legal resident in the community, paid unconditionally as a right, regardless of income, employment or relationship status.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the case for BI does not rest on the assumption that robots and artificial intelligence will cause mass unemployment or that it would be a more efficient way of relieving poverty than present welfare systems (although it would). The main arguments are ethical and relate to social justice, individual freedom and the need for basic security.
First, a BI is a matter of social justice. The wealth and income of all of us has far more to do with the efforts and achievements of our collective forebears than with anything we do for ourselves. If we accept private inheritance, we should accept social inheritance, regarding a BI as a “social dividend” on our collective wealth.
In an era of rentier capitalism, in which more and more income is being channelled to the owners of assets—physical, financial and intellectual—and in which wages will continue to stagnate, a BI would provide an anchor for a fairer income-distribution system. And it would compensate the growing “precariat”, hit by labour flexibility, technological disruption and economic uncertainty.
In an era of rentier capitalism… [a basic income] would provide an anchor for a fairer income-distribution system. And, in countries with high crime-rates it could have a profound effect upon criminal activity. From a Pew Report here:
Research indicates that about 75 percent of America's state prison inmates, almost 59 percent of federal inmates, and 69 percent of jail inmates did not complete high school.
Rentier-capitalism, is "franglais" - that is rentier in French means (in English) "a person living on income from property or investments". You know, uh ... people like Donald Dork and his entire family.
Though, of course, they like to call themselves working "businessmen and businesswomen". So, pray tell, what's in a name? (Fecal-matter smells odious like all fecal-matter ... ;^)
It is almost never a real question of "How much you got", but "How you got it" ...
NB: Note that in the definition of Basic Income, the key criterion is "legal resident in the community". Meaning one was born with national citizenship or acquired it legally. It does not mean the guy/gal who just made it through the fence from some foreign country (who probably deserves asylum but not necessarily citizenship).
Last edited: