From: Damien Broderick (d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Mon Jul 23 2001 - 02:07:52 MDT
At 06:54 PM 7/22/01 -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>You still have not answer my earlier question: how much money
>do you think that your U.S. government will have to spend on the
>200,000,000 adults in the U.S. to provide the GMI?
In my understanding of the general idea, you pay it back as your earnings
grow beyond a certain threshold. If you're currently pulling in $100,000+,
you'll get the GI, but then refund it (in toto, I imagine) once your earned
income kicks in. What's the problem? Do you really suppose all those
200,000,000 rich, middle-class and moderately well-off working class folks
will happily settle for a pittance when they can keep earning a healthy
income, with nice clothes, good food, fat insurance policies, ample travel,
expensive hookers, etc, in the good old way by toiling for it? (Well, those
of them who still have jobs once smart systems downsize the poor buggers in
increasing numbers. At least the *hookers* will still have a job.)
>Remember also,
>that we have now learned (thanks to Chris Rauch this morning 10:01am)
>that about one-fourth of the populace would quit working within a
>year
Aargh. Lee, Lee, do you really think there's no motivational distinction
between being assured of getting, say, $25,000 a year `Purple Wage' for a
family of four (THE SPIKE, p. 249), and winning 10 million bucks in one
joyous and often tax-free lump?
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:09:02 MST