From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Jul 23 2001 - 07:19:11 MDT
Damien wrote
> 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?
Thanks for tackling the question head-on!
> 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?
Sorry, but you may be losing me. See, I've thought about these
things, but didn't do any research or have many people to discuss
the ideas with. So we are talking about a pittance here. Okay,
so what's that? Let's say $1000. Yes, then if an adminstration
in the U.S. disbanded HEW, that would yield about $1000 per adult.
So that wouldn't result in any tax increase; but then, I'm thinking
that you are also in favor of a hefty tax increase. Is this too
complicated? Does one have to go to the economists that you refer
to in "The Spike" for further details, or is it still possible to
discuss it here? After all, one has to guess at the post tax-hike
revenue, and the post GMI tax revenue.
>> 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?
Sorry. Logical error on my part. I should have remembered that
distinction, and that you were probably talking about something
smaller than I was thinking about (a pittance, it turns out).
Um, now does the typical lottery winner here get 10 million bucks?
The ones that I remember reading about usually have to settle for
a life-time guarantee of $100,000 a year or something. By the way,
getting $1000 a year is approximately equivalent to the interest
earned on $20,000 (if there aren't any taxes). Since we're just
talking ideas, do you have an idea of the value of the GI, say
in America, that you are talking about?
I'll go on record as guessing that if we switched over tomorrow
to a GI of $10,000, without loss of other government benefits,
a lot of people (who have had a rough day, or who hate their
boss, or who are daunted at preparing their resume) would find
a way to live on it, and that we'd have, say, about a third of
the workforce quitting within five years. Sound too pessimistic?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:09:02 MST