14305Re:Total land rent?
- Nov 13, 2012--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:
> I agree that there are political issues with a cash dividend. All over the western world, both a large portion of the right and left will oppose this. From the right you'll hear that everyone should work, and noone receive any "entitlements" (said very negatively),The UIE erases that objection: "What, are you now calling having an equal right to liberty an 'entitlement'?"
> on the left, you'll hear that entitlements are fine, but that they must be conditional on either work, or being part of a certain group believed to be downtrodden, or not being part of the group labelled "the rich".Again, the UIE erases it: "What, you don't think everyone should have equal rights to life and liberty?"
> As it happens, both groups will agree that there has to be a programme for ensuring that there's liquidity to pay for essentials in addition to the use of land for those who are in a rut.Private charities like food banks, soup kitchens, thrift stores, etc. seem to be able to handle this type of need fairly well. The US food stamps program is publicly funded (though not very well designed), and something similar could be made to work much better. The left seems especially eager to put large amounts of unrestricted purchasing power into the hands of the poor, but that would have to be classed as a case of hope triumphing over experience.
> The right will either require bureacratic means-testing, and/or slightly demeaning make-work, and the left will also require means-testing (to avoid anyone "rich" getting any), and a "jobs programme", which usually is also slightly demeaning make-work.All of which are additional reasons to make it a matter of equal individual human rights via the UIE.
> So instead of giving out a CD, where individuals on the lower margins can adjust between land use and essentials,They'll be the first to show you just how false that dichotomy is, and how much more you will consequently end up having to spend on them to keep them out of destitution.
> we'll have a slightly more expensive apparatus to dole out cash or vouchers in addition to a UIE.No cash. Period. Ever. If the free, secure access to opportunity afforded by the UIE is not enough for someone make a decent life for themselves even with a social worker's help, then they are probably not mentally competent to be handling their own affairs, and should be under some kind of legal supervision or conservatorship.
> If that's what it takes to satisfy the Righteous and Envious, that's fine as long as we have a sensible tax-system.I think you might be surprised just how much better things work once you stop giving out cash.
-- Roy Langston
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>