We have discussed similar things before, but of late the idea seems to be catching on. The big question with a Basic Income is how to finance it and whether it will actually alleviate poverty, be sustainable, or whether it will disincentivize work etc. My view is that not a Universal but a specific Basic Income for the poor (like the 20% least fortunate of society) coming out to about 5% of the annual Budget or of GDP, replacing several other schemes that almost come to about the same, is worth it and could work in reducing poverty, especially in a country like India, which the article discusses. Thoughts from people here? Will it work in India, and is it worth trying in other countries as well?
From Business Today (https://m.businesstoday.in/story/universal-basic-income-will-it-work-in-india/1/314686.html) See also, in related news, https://www.timesofindia.com/india/new-data-may-show-big-cut-in-number-of-poor/articleshow/67705787.cms
QuoteUniversal Basic Income: Will it work in India?
The idea of UBI is not new but in the past few years, it has resurfaced globally in a very big way as a means of redistributing income
Universal Basic Income: Will it work in India?
The central government is believed to be working on a universal basic income (UBI) scheme for the poor ahead of the General Elections. The Economic Survey of 2016-17 had first flagged the UBI as "a conceptually appealing idea" and a possible alternative to social welfare programmes targeted at reducing poverty.
What is UBI?
UBI is a fixed income every adult - rich or poor, working or idle - receives from government. The idea is that a society, as a first priority, should look out for its people's survival; the lesson is that possibly it can do so without unequal redistributive plans.
According to Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), a global network of academics, students and social policy practitioners promoting and serving as a repository of published research on UBI, "A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement."
Why UBI?
The idea of UBI is not new but in the past few years, it has resurfaced globally in a very big way as a means of redistributing income. Several experiments/pilots are being currently run across the world, but not yet adopted by any country as such.
The primary reasons for the tilt towards UBI are two:
Growing and vast inequality
Threat of automation affecting jobs and creating joblessness
Some experts think the existing system "would falter and fail if confronted with vast inequality and tidal waves of joblessness." (Annie Lawrey, author of "Give People Money: How a Universal Basic Income Would End Poverty, Revolutionize Work, and Remake the World")
Basic premise of Economic Survey (ES) of 2016-17's UBI: "A just society needs to guarantee to each individual a minimum income which they can count on, and which provides the necessary material foundation for a life with access to basic goods and a life of dignity." Three components of this UBI model are: universality, un-conditionality and agency (by providing support in the form of cash transfers to respect, not dictate, recipients' choices). Its key features:
Poverty line for 2016-17 has been fixed at Rs 7,620 per year, using Tendulkar's poverty line formula (inflation indexing @ Rs 5,400 per year fixed for 2011-12 to 2016-17 with a target poverty level of 0.45%) to lift all poor above the Tendulkar poverty line.
It takes 75% of population as universal for UBI purpose.
Cost and fiscal space: ES model will cost 4.9% of GDP - as against 5.2% of GDP spent on all 950 central sector and centrally sponsored sub-schemes (actual allocation of 2016-17). So, fiscal space exists - but only if UBI replaces all existing Central govt. schemes.
Income transfer through DBT and by replacing all Central schemes ...
I think Universal Basic Income is a good idea if it is a percentage of the annual gross domestic product of a country. That way everyone, even the unemployed or underemployed will have the incentive to do something to increase the annual gross domestic product of their country. They will have that incentive because when the annual gross domestic product increases so will the annual Universal Basic Income increase, because the UBI is a percentage of the GDP. It will be interesting to see how it works in India.
The Michael Journal calls it a National Dividend. It's the same as a Universal Basic Income. I'm going to post this whole article from the Michael Journal instead of trying to explain it in my own words.
https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/social-credit/item/a-national-dividend-for-all
QuoteA National Dividend to All
An Additional Source of Income
(https://www.michaeljournal.org/images/articles/364/mechanical-shovel.jpg)
Today, a single mechanical shovel can replace 350 workers.
You have watched, no doubt, machinery at work, whether at an excavation site or during the construction of a highway. You have witnessed the power and speed at which a mechanical shovel bites into the hardest of grounds and loads trucks one after another.
But did you realize that a mechanical shovel can do in one day what thirty-five men might do in ten days, working by hand? Did you know that by adding a foreman and two truck drivers to such a machine, they could do the work of 350 men? Did you ask yourself what becomes of these men when excavation jobs are no longer available?
If you visit a mine or a quarry, you will see pneumatic drills activated by compressed air. Each drill, in the hands of a single man, breaks up as much rock as twenty men working with pick and shovel. What becomes of these 19 men once their labor is no longer needed?
Visit the docks and see the loading and unloading activities that take place: cranes, bagging equipment, grain vacuums and other suitable machinery that does the work efficiently, which would otherwise require hundreds of workers. What happens to the men who are laid off because of this modern technology?
Some time ago, summer after summer, thousands of men from Quebec and Ontario would take the train to work at the harvest in Western Canada. They received wages that were well worth the time spent away from home. This no longer exists today. Now we see combine harvesters on large grain farms. Each one does the work of 160 manual harvesters. How will the latter replace the wages they no longer receive?
We could go on. The world of production has changed a lot over the last fifty years: Motor force has grown twenty times over. In Quebec, harnessed waterfalls provide some eight million horsepower, the equivalent manpower of 70 million men. If this force was equally divided among the inhabitants of the province, each person – man, woman and child – would have the power equivalent of 15 men at their service, willing and ready to serve them, 24 hours a day. (1965 figures)
The means of production have improved greatly. And more progress has yet to come.
Unemployment
But the question remains: If machinery displaces men, what will the men displaced by machinery live on, since they will no longer receive a salary?
One might ask: What did they live on during the last few decades? With what? At first, periodic crises forced them to spend their savings, and then to go into debt. Whether dealing with private debts or public debts, getting into debt means using other people's income. Those who are deprived of income by progress, have no other choice than to live off of other people's income, or they must stop living altogether. We live off other people's income, not only when we panhandle, but when we do unnecessary things, when we hold a parasitical job in a superfluous business, or in a bureaucracy that a country could do without.
What did the people live on?
What did they live on? We have had two wars in less than thirty years and war is exactly the means used to occupy the arms that are not needed because of progress, since they are being used to destroy production. Once war is over, employment can again be found at rebuilding the ruins. But as the means of production rise from the ashes, crises begin anew.
At the time of the Marshall Plan, the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Atcheson, put it bluntly: "If we did not have the Marshall Plan to help Europe, production would pile up in America and millions of Americans would be unemployed."
And President Truman told Mr. Gray, the ex-Secretary of the United States Army, to find the manner by which, after the expiration of the Marshall Plan, Europe might again obtain the means to buy American products. Otherwise, he added, Americans would suffer from the accumulation of products in their own country. Abundance, which we should have rejoiced in, had become a distressing problem. The same happened in Canada.
Progress, which puts motor power and machinery at the service of man, ought to give man a better standard of living while relieving him of his labor. Progress, an abundant production, made possible by the use of machinery and by improved processes, should free man from his fear of tomorrow: Since products are plentiful today and will be even more plentiful in the future, why should we worry about tomorrow?
Insecurity
In spite of today's abundant production, no-one has ever been as worried about the future as we now are. Most people no longer own anything they can call their own. The family that owned a piece of land a hundred years ago could rely on the soil to feed itself. Where are these patches of land that used to belong to the three-quarters of the people who have been chased out of the countryside into industrial centers?
Ownership is the lot of a small minority. And how many, among this minority, only possess a mortgaged property, which taxes they have to pay on, but which title they no longer possess?
What about employment? Employment is the only source of income for the majority of today's families; and it is more precarious now than ever before. Employment can be relied upon only during wartime, when destruction is carried out in a wide-scale and scientific fashion. As soon as production becomes wide-scale and scientific, employees feel insecure.
Wasn't the Government forced into instituting unemployment insurance? Did one speak of unemployment insurance during the era of manual labor?
Unemployment insurance is far from providing security. It is far from distributing the abundance made by machinery. In fact, it begins by reducing the worker's paycheck, which is a strange way to let him know that progress is working for him. Unemployment insurance is a ridiculous cure for an illness that should not even exist. It is hard to believe that the advent of abundance throughout the world should create misery.
Is progress the enemy of mankind? Must we dispense with education, with discoveries; close the universities and laboratories?
Let us change policies
Progress must not be suppressed, but it must be made to liberate mankind. For this to happen, we must simply introduce policies of allocation and of distribution that are in harmony with progress. We have, at present, the same distribution policies that we had when work was done manually.
The distribution of products is carried out by consumers handing over money for the goods they need. Yet, we insist that only people who are employed should receive money. Progress has a tendency to reduce employment: If employment is made a requirement to a claim on products, this means therefore that progress increasingly removes the claims to products.
If wages alone distribute money to individuals and families, then the more machinery will replace men, the less money will reach individuals and families. Even if wages are increased, this will not give anything to those who do not have a job. Moreover, increased wages cause prices to rise, which makes the situation even worse for those who do not receive these increased wages.
It could be said that the men who lose their jobs to machinery in a workshop will find employment elsewhere because new needs call for new services. This is more or less true. Some are able indeed to find a satisfactory job but how many must settle for tasks for which they are not suited, and for conditions that are imposed upon them? Others find temporary jobs; and still others find none. All are subjected to worry, are subjected to lesser or greater losses; and no-one finds in the progress, which has put them out of work, the degree of security that modern abundance should have, logically, given them a right to.
Additional income
In order for machinery, science and progress to become a blessing instead of a punishment, we must:
First, recognize that progress is a common inheritance, it results from our acquiring scientific and cultural knowledge, built upon and transmitted from one generation to the next. Therefore all must benefit from progress, whether they be employed or not.
Secondly, without eliminating wages, which are the reward for work, we need to introduce an additional source of income; another means of obtaining money, not tied to employment (such as salaries) but that is related to the total amount of products issuing forth from nature and industry. The more machinery takes over man's work, the more important this second source of money must be, since it is issued to buy the fruits of progress, and no longer as a reward for individual effort.
Social Crediters call this second source of income a "national dividend". A dividend distributed to all in order to buy the production that is made by machinery. A dividend, to pay for the products that wages are less and less able to pay for, products that are made more and more by machinery, and less and less by workers.
Therefore, Social Credit is not a new political party trying to come to power. It is a new means by which the abundant goods of modern production can be distributed. This new way does not do away with the old way, but it adds to it. The old way, which has become less and less satisfactory, speaks of "wages paid for a job done". To this "wages paid for a job done", the new way adds: "A dividend to each and everyone".
The salary must go to the worker: It remains, as before, the reward for individual effort. But the dividend would go to everyone since it would be the fruit of progress, which is a common good.
No matter what anyone might say against it, the dividend is the only formula capable of regulating the present economic situation, which is owed to progress. Besides, it is also the only way of preventing unemployment, which has no reason to be as long as there are needs that are not satisfied. In buying the products that are not selling in its absence, the dividend would speed up the production of replacement goods, which is at a standstill today because of the accumulation of products.
Dividends would increase the total purchasing power found within the country; and it would democratize this new purchasing power by spreading it everywhere, even among the individuals who are unemployed.
How many advantages would this result in? By guaranteeing that each and everyone receives a periodic income, the dividend would dispel the fear and uncertainty of tomorrow. In supplementing the family's income, the dividend would allow people to turn their backs on bureaucratic plans, such as state-run medical care, which puts the individuals in a yoke of networks, of inspections, of waiting lists and of political tinkering. He who has sufficient money in his pocket does not need all of these plans; he takes care of his own affairs.
In doing away with abject poverty, a social dividend to all would put an end, in the sphere of economics, to the initial argument used by socialists, in their propaganda.
Additional articles about the National Dividend from the Michael Journal.
The National Dividend
Chapter 14 from the book 'In This Age of Plenty'
https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/social-credit/item/the-national-dividend
The National Dividend
Chapter XI from the book 'From Debt to Prosperity'
https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/social-credit/item/the-national-dividend-2
Dividends
A collection of additional articles about the National Dividend
https://www.michaeljournal.org/category/dividends
Every country should be attempting to pay off all debt. As it stands, any country with debt is placing its entire citizenry in slavery, to be called at anytime by the creditors -- often in the form of war.
Extending one's monetary needs while maintaining debt, or even going further in, in order to extend the national lifestyle, is insane. A UBI is like giving everyone morphine instead of triaging patients and not treating accordingly.
The GDP dividend idea is interesting. I'd support that to a degree, depending on how it would work, but I see no reason for some spoken word poet to get the same amount as an engineer -- one contributed to the actual reality, and the other simply exists within a geographical boundary.
I'd say the closest to that system is probably the Alaska method of permanent funds from oil royalties. In that case, they all get an equal cut. Granted, not all contribute equally (some actually work the fields whereas others have no part), but the difference is the workers get paid for their work in addition and everyone, in some sense, "owns" the mineral/oil rights by virtue of being citizens of Alaska. I don't know that holds as much for a GDP based dividend which doesn't get into such communal owning.
The only way it would have a chance of working is if it is actually universal and given to poor and rich alike so as to completely disassociate it from incentives. That was Milton Friedman's idea anyway. And then you'd have to gut the rest of the welfare state. This of course is not how it would play out here if it is leftists who enact it. And it will probably only be enacted by leftists.
Weren't there a few places trying this out that decided to call it quits?
Whether or not it accomplishes anything it is ultimately a utopian scheme and novelty.
I can see merits to UBI but it isn't going to do **** for poverty. People in our country are not poor because they lack money. Usually they lack discipline, or responsibility, and whatever money they get is used foolishly.
The only thing historically proven to eliminate poverty is capitalism.
But UBI, particularly if it replaces other welfare programs, might be helpful to responsible people and society as a whole. Or it might be a disaster, depending on how it's done.
Quote
Ownership is the lot of a small minority. And how many, among this minority, only possess a mortgaged property, which taxes they have to pay on, but which title they no longer possess?
Typical modern first world whining about things that are not actually problems when one considers the long term historical record of civilized humanity.
Ownership is the lot of a small minority? Ha! That's a flat out lie even by simple statistics. And even more egregious when one considers what it normally was in any other era besides our own. Modern egalitarian bs.
(For the record I do not own an inch of property)
Quote from: Lambda Phage on January 30, 2019, 06:28:36 AM
...
Quote
Ownership is the lot of a small minority. And how many, among this minority, only possess a mortgaged property, which taxes they have to pay on, but which title they no longer possess?
Typical modern first world whining about things that are not actually problems when one considers the long term historical record of civilized humanity.
Ownership is the lot of a small minority? Ha! That's a flat out lie even by simple statistics. And even more egregious when one considers what it normally was in any other era besides our own. Modern egalitarian bs.
(For the record I do not own an inch of property)
You have clearly taken that out of context. If you go back one paragraph you can clearly see that he is talking about ownership of a piece of land that a family could rely on the soil to feed themselves. If one hundred years ago three quarters of the people owned a patch of land they could rely on, like the article says, then the ownership of this type of land is clearly the lot of a small minority now. I've read that the average farm in the US is 400 acres and in Canada 600 acres now, and getting larger.
See where you have taken one sentence out of context.
QuoteIn spite of today's abundant production, no-one has ever been as worried about the future as we now are. Most people no longer own anything they can call their own. The family that owned a piece of land a hundred years ago could rely on the soil to feed itself. Where are these patches of land that used to belong to the three-quarters of the people who have been chased out of the countryside into industrial centers?
Ownership is the lot of a small minority. And how many, among this minority, only possess a mortgaged property, which taxes they have to pay on, but which title they no longer possess?
But this above is just a sideline to the main article. Which is how progress will continually displace people from the workforce, and how neither capitalism (with it's welfare schemes) or socialism are a solution to the problem. A National Dividend or Universal Basic Income as it's described in the OP articles about India could very well be the solution. Like I say, it will be interesting to see how it works in India.
Meh I don't buy it. I still think he is talking about ownership in a larger context in addition to his specific example. Hence "Most people no longer own anything they can call their own." Why make such a general statement? Why say "ownership" alone in the next paragraph instead of "ownership of farm land" or something of the sort if he was only talking about ownership of one particular thing rather than ownership of anything as he said above?
He wouldn't be the first to make such a complaint.
As for technology displacing people from the workforce, people have been worried about that for over two hundred years and it hasn't actually happened yet.
It does displace them from their current jobs, but it does not displace them from the workforce overall. Dr. Greg Clark discusses this in A Farewell to Alms. For all the jobs that technology eliminates it creates even more new ones. Somebody has to build the robots, somebody else has to maintain them and service them. And with training a more competent and ambitious person can design the robots, and if that's already been done he can design a better one than the other guy did, or a more energy efficient one, or what have you. There are better examples out there, but you get the point.
It is obvious that there are thousands upon thousands of jobs that only exist today because of technology. An unskilled laborer can still work the land if he so chooses. Illegals do it happily. Americans find that beneath themselves and demand higher wages.
The unskilled laborer in the 15th century worked in a field. In the 21st century he works at McDonalds. You can say what you want about dignity of work but people generally don't care. They would rather work an 8hr shift flipping patties and getting an actual paycheck and health and retirement benefits than breaking their backs in a field for food and not pay.
does not the Caste system, the belief in Karma and the social and mental constructs built around that play a huge part in the poverty problems of India?
If UBI is just the hip new code speak for rationalizing inefficient welfare systems then maybe it's worth considering. If it actually means a universal allowance granted to everyone then the calculations I saw for Canada suggest that anything over a couple thousand per person per year, which is needless to say a pittance, would be unaffordable. Plus the politicians proposing it are also turning around to propose massive immigration hikes, so all in all a big NO THANK YOU
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on January 31, 2019, 06:32:47 AM
does not the Caste system, the belief in Karma and the social and mental constructs built around that play a huge part in the poverty problems of India?
Pft, no, don't be ridiculous.
The problem is clearly that they don't have enough money.
Your post is riddled with microaggressions. ;)
Quote from: Lambda Phage on January 30, 2019, 06:28:36 AM
Ownership is the lot of a small minority? Ha! That's a flat out lie even by simple statistics. And even more egregious when one considers what it normally was in any other era besides our own. Modern egalitarian bs.
(For the record I do not own an inch of property)
It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it? Yes, of course, given America's history as a frontier country, plenty of people (relatively speaking) owned land. But in medieval Europe, the vast majority of people rented and frequently moved from place to place (within the same village or city). It was normal to live with non-relatives, or for multiple families to share homes.
Which is not to say I'm advocating for a return to peasantry, but if you're like me and you don't really value the idea of home ownership that much (for example), then it's just one massive thing less to worry about.
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on January 31, 2019, 06:32:47 AM
does not the Caste system, the belief in Karma and the social and mental constructs built around that play a huge part in the poverty problems of India?
Yeah, but the same could be said of Christianity in terms of feudalism; that God "places us" in these specific social classes for a specific reason of His Glory and we should accept the roles which we are given.
Quote from: Lambda Phage on January 30, 2019, 06:28:36 AM
People in our country are not poor because they lack money. Usually they lack discipline, or responsibility, and whatever money they get is used foolishly.
They also lack
education. And people of other countries, coming here
en masse, or trying to (I'm not referring to engineers from East Asia, South Asia, and Russia) overall lack education. Check out Central America, South America, and Mexico. The ones trying to migrate north largely have primitive skills, which are also important in any economy, but those will not work as the bulk of labor to sustain any First World country like the U.S.
If you reject education, or are lied to and told you shouldn't need to be [basically] educated in order to make a living, then it will be very hard for you to survive in a capitalistic economy, quite simply. By basic education I mean literacy at minimum. People in rural Third World regions typically finish their education in 3rd-4th grade. That is shockingly duplicated in some regions of the U.S., as well, including in the urban North. Third/fourth grade literacy is insufficient in the contemporary First World; it is at least unreliable.
A thriving capitalistic democracy depends on literate members to operate well. That means the ability to read and think critically at a minimum level. Increasingly, it also means, in virtually every industry, a familiarity with basic technology and its tools.
Regarding India in particular, my Indian students tell me that corruption is a huge problem in India. I don't know how it compares to corruption in Mexico or China, but I know that it is significant because some of my students have tried to help to redress the social "inequalities" in India, particularly in education, and have experienced what happens when they do.
QuoteYeah, but the same could be said of Christianity in terms of feudalism; that God "places us" in these specific social classes for a specific reason of His Glory and we should accept the roles which we are given.
"If allah wills it." is the same thing. But I am not aware of Christianity preaching we should "accept" the role, etc.... Back before electricity, books, etc.... feudalism was probably a great system. It was only the use of large quantities of coal that allowed the population to be educated, and to allow them to massively increase their productivity that changed that.
I believe it was Augustine (correct me if I'm wrong) who said "work like it all depends on you, but pray because it all depends on God". You also have to avoid the sin of presumption. Anyhow, don't "accept" anything. It is more likely God is putting you in a bad situation as a way to develop you. We are sharpened by adversity and struggle. Even failure should be looked upon as learning something.
QuoteThoughts from people here? Will it work in India, and is it worth trying in other countries as well?
Will it "work" in India? No. In order to pay out the money, they have to get the money. So they will be stealing money from the producers to give to poor people. We're talking a Billion people. So if you pay out $3/day, that's $90 BILLION per month that is being robbed from your producers. India needs producers, so you are doing the opposite of what is needed. India needs capital formation and capital accumulation. Their main problem is corruption and their caste system.
On effects, look at the effects of SNAP, WIC, public schools, and medicaid, just to name a few of the programs. Massive debt and a zombie class.
As a move to improve efficiency, it has some merit. Switch to that, close down all other socialist transfer payment schemes, and fire about 2 million government leeches on the State and Federal level. That would be of benefit.
Funding is the problem. One area that I'd support is in the distribution of national income such as royalties (as mentioned previously). Take all the oil, gas, and mining royalties that come from Federal and State lands and just give it to people. I'd deposit it in an IRA type program that you can't touch until you are 62. Also, it's yours, so you can pass on any remaining funds to your kids after you die.
Finally there is the marxist philosophy involved, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". If that is your philosophy, then a single man working a hard job should receive less than a single mother with 5 kids from 6 men. In fact, the more kids she has, the more money she should make.
Relief of the poor resides with the Church.
RR on socialism in general. Prophetic.
Quote15. And in addition to injustice, it is only too evident what an upset and disturbance there would be in all classes, and to how intolerable and hateful a slavery citizens would be subjected. The door would be thrown open to envy, to mutual invective, and to discord; the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the levelling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation.
Thanks, Mike. The really sustainable and great way to do it would be through Social Credit. Abolishing fractional reserve central banking, instituting a strict equivalence between basic money supply and GDP in the economy, and then instituting a national dividend after that.
But leaving that aside, I think this is a great proposal, I supported it when Dr. Arvind Subramanian's earlier pilot study came out, and I agree with economist P. Chidambaram's calculations below - I will go further and say if what is now called QURBI [a basic income provided to about 20% of the poorest, or about 200 Million People of about 1500 Rs/Month, which comes to about 3.6 trillion Rs per year - a fraction of India's GDP] is implemented in India before 2020 end, it is a very good attempt to end poverty and imho will almost certainly spell the end of at least extreme poverty (please read the second link in the OP, and you will see about 50 million people still live with under $1.9 a day, or about 50000 Rs a year. In dollar terms, that's less than 60 a month and 720 a year. Meanwhile, India's GDP is around 2.6 trillion in dollars, or about 182 trillion in Rupees. 1.5% of GDP is enough for a dividend reaching 20% of people.) within 5 to 10 years. It also encourages every one to work harder and increase the national economy, and it will be good imo for every country to adopt similar schemes, of course carefully adapted and tailored to the needs of their own citizens. I work as a finance consultant and we never propose the same solution to everybody. Similar principles have vastly different applications. Specific situations call for unique resolutions. But I know India well and this is an excellent proposal for India imo. I hope it goes ahead.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/expert-view/india-can-afford-to-set-apart-1-5-of-the-gdp-to-ensure-that-nobody-is-too-poor-chidambaram/articleshow/67738133.cms
QuoteYou believe this is fiscally possible. You believe there is fiscal room to bring about a programme as ambitious as this. Is that what we are hearing from someone who has been fiscally extremely prudent in his tenure at North Block?
Yes. We have done our calculations, others have done it too. For example, Dr Arvind Subramanian has made some calculations and he has indicated that we may require at the most the outer limits may be about 1.5% of GDP and I ask myself can this and I ask myself can this country not afford to set apart 1.5% of the GDP to ensure that nobody is so poor that he and his family cannot afford to buy food, cannot afford to buy clothes, cannot have a shelter over their heads?
As a nation we must resolve that 70 years after independence, if a section of the are very, very poor -- it could be 20% or 18% -- we must set apart enough resources to wipe out poverty. Given the size of our GDP, that is eminently doable. I am sure that when we when we do the fine calculations, we will be able to find the resources to fund this scheme ...
There are different estimates of poverty and the government has announced that in June, there will be fresh estimates of poverty. Let us assume that the poverty line is about 20% or 18% of 22%, roughly about one-fifth of India. We should be able to find the resources to lift them to a level where they can say we have enough food on the table, we have enough clothes to wear, we have a shelter over our head. I have given you one estimate made by Dr Arvind Subramanian. Other estimates have also been made. We will start with the poorest and we will go up. I think it is doable and it is not inconsistent with fiscal prudence. It is eminently manageable, consistent with fiscal discipline.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/expert-view/india-can-afford-to-set-apart-1-5-of-the-gdp-to-ensure-that-nobody-is-too-poor-chidambaram/articleshow/67738133.cms
QuoteRelief of the poor resides with the Church.
Yes. And Mother Theresa worked for that relief for many years, and did a good job. Thanks to her order like the Missionaries of Charity and other similar charitable activities carried on by the Church in India, many educated Hindus - there are some rare fanatics of course - have a positive view of the Church and Her work. But this goes beyond that, and is an economic vision for more widely sharing ownership.
Social Credit as explained in Mike's link is a distributist vision where the fruits of production are more evenly shared, and work itself and increased production is the principal means to alleviate and better the lot of the less fortunate - a vision very much in accord, as even Bishops have noted, and even informed by, Rerum Novarum. Some have proposed something like a "basic share" and that's also a good idea.
Quote from: Rerum Novarum"46. If a workman's wages be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children, he will find it easy, if he be a sensible man, to practice thrift, and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little savings and thus secure a modest source of income. Nature itself would urge him to this. We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners.
47. Many excellent results will follow from this; and, first of all, property will certainly become more equitably divided. For, the result of civil change and revolution has been to divide cities into two classes separated by a wide chasm. On the one side there is the party which holds power because it holds wealth; which has in its grasp the whole of labor and trade; which manipulates for its own benefit and its own purposes all the sources of supply, and which is not without influence even in the administration of the commonwealth. On the other side there is the needy and powerless multitude, sick and sore in spirit and ever ready for disturbance. If working people can be encouraged to look forward to obtaining a share in the land, the consequence will be that the gulf between vast wealth and sheer poverty will be bridged over, and the respective classes will be brought nearer to one another. A further consequence will result in the great abundance of the fruits of the earth. Men always work harder and more readily when they work on that which belongs to them; nay, they learn to love the very soil that yields in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance of good things for themselves and those that are dear to them. That such a spirit of willing labor would add to the produce of the earth and to the wealth of the community is self evident. And a third advantage would spring from this: men would cling to the country in which they were born, for no one would exchange his country for a foreign land if his own afforded him the means of living a decent and happy life."
A policy of a basic income for about 20% tied to increase of GDP, for the working poor of India - many of whom are poor, laboring farmers who scarcely have the basic necessities of life - is something very much in accord with that. Those in the other 80% can very well make a little allowance and the small sacrifices that make that possible. The same for other countries when imo this will be more widely implemented. Let's see.
Yeah I hope they go ahead with it in India too. If they show that it can work in the largest democracy in the world then it can work in any country.
Quote...
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
- Rudyard Kipling