This new book from Richard Pereira (and contributors Albert Jörimann (BIEN Switzerland) and Gary Flomenhoft (University of Vermont)) argues that basic income at a decent level is, in fact, affordable. The contributors approach the topic from the perspectives of three different countries — Canada, Switzerland, and Australia — to overcome objections that a universal program to keep all citizens above the poverty line would be too expensive to implement. They assess the complex array of revenue sources that can make universal basic income feasible, from the underestimated value of public program redundancies to new and so far unaccounted publicly owned assets.
The book proposes two basic incomes – one traditional and one based on economic rent, along the lines of the Freedom Dividend. The tradicional approach would eliminate many oppressive bureaucratic, expensive and ineffective programs and direct the money to a higher basic income, while preserving universal healthcare, public education funding and other vital public programs. It demonstrates that this can be achieved without raising income taxes, or taxes on labour income.
The authors believe this to be the most progressive proposal in the literature. The basic income proposed would eliminate poverty (it meets the official poverty line threshold) and, above all, would be feasible and affordable, while addressing economic externalities and economic rent in ways that other proposals have not.
Can you provide a moral or ethical justification for the current process of money creation?
So, how can any administration of immorally created money be, moral, or ethical?
Last I checked, the definition of Basic Income included all people, and the proposals you suggest, do not. How progressive is that?
And still you disregard the ethical correction of our current money creation process, global economic enfranchisement, our economic emancipation.
How do you fail to recognize fiat currency as being borrowed from each human being, while bank collects interest?
What argument can you provide against allowing each adult human on the planet to claim an equal Share of fiat credit, to be held in trust with their local deposit bank, administered by local fiduciaries and actuaries exclusively for secure sovereign investment, at a fixed and sustainable rate, as part of an actual local social contract?
Not only will the simple correction provide a consistent global basic income, for no additional cost over the fees paid to create and maintain money, but all money will be created equal, at a fixed cost. So, we return to fixed foreign exchange, and each level of each government, along with each individual sovereign human, may access sustainably priced money for secure investment.
Setting the value of a Share at €1,000,000 and the sovereign rate at 1,25%, provides the potential to create sufficient money at an affordable cost to provide for the needs of all people. All people will then share equally in the fees, as more capital is created.
The result is a stable, sustainable, inclusive, regenerative global economic system
When it comes to “Financing Basic Income” I am very troubled by the statement “…and one based on economic rent, along the lines of the Freedom Dividend….” . It renders the book useless for UBI and the authors need to re-align their thinking.
Someone must tell the truth about the free beer called the “Freedom Dividend”.
Yang is a deceiver. The proper way to have UBI is to tax Wealth, not consumption.
The real UBI comes from taxing the beer in my bottle, Yang wants UBI that comes from taxing only the beer I pour out of my bottle.
With the Yang’s UBI (Freedom Dividend) you will not get any beer as UBI if nobody is drinking. LOL
(With the Yang’s version of UBI , If I do not drink my beer you die from thirst … LOL.)
If you do not believe me then go on Yang’s page and look at how he will fund his UBI … it is from consumption (VAT, carbon tax), the current welfare system and the “hope” LOL that the economy will grow .
MATH = Make America Terrifying Hell
Yang’s Freedom Dividend is more like “Fools” Dividend.
So, how authors of the book would ensure the people pour enough beer out of the bottle at all times so that everybody would get enough of it to satisfy their thirst?
The rich are not required to consume or invest. The rich only own Wealth (all the beer).