> > Quite honestly I suspect that this move at the moment by Labour is more to
> > wrong foot the Conservatives, and because someone in the government has
> > read the book Max cited. But it just could be part of a longer term
> > strategy to cap the Conservatives' appeal strategically. After all New
> > Labour wants to appeal to the middle ground without totally losing its
> > idealist left wing.
>===========
>Anthony Atkinson, perhaps?
>http://www.citizensincome.org
That is presumably the author of:
The Basic Income/Flat Tax Proposal ANTHONY B. ATKINSON, Nuffield College, Oxford
[from OUP website]:
>>>>>>>>>>>
This book surveys recent developments in public economics by studying the proposals for a basic income/flat tax scheme. It discusses various approaches to taxation and presents a framework for a system which would affect both personal income and the social security system, replacing the one by a flat-rate income tax and the other by a guaranteed income. The idea has generated wide interest in a number of countries, and is being actively discussed by a number of political groups. This book explains how these changes would benefit a wide variety of social groups, but asks how a single reform can meet the very different objectives of different supporters.
"A wonderful book that deserves a wide readership within the public finance community."--Choice
184 pp. $17.95
<<<<<<<<
I appreciate the URL for the web-page for Citizens Income. Although both proposals are about making everyone participate in a market economy by giving state money to people, they are rather different.
The baby bonds blurb says something rather ominous about how the money might be given back to the state in later life. There is also talk by its advocates about overcoming the generational gap, which I do not quite understand but may be the same thing.
Citizen's income is about regular payments by means of a tax credit. As the Citizens Income web page shows, this could have increasing merits for social democratic governments dealing with persistent low pay for women, and above all the problem of the demographic boom in pensioners.
Without massive immigration the advanced capitalist economies cannot sustain the aging population. Any change in the age of receiving pensions in terms of national policy is very difficult to do. Nor is it clear exactly when people biologically need to retire. Socially it would be much better if they could be treated not just as a commodity of labour power but citizens able to sell this part time, according to their circumstances, and opportunities. They could work in less responsible jobs part time where inflexibility of thinking and the insidious onset of dementia, would not be too risky, and their greater social experience could be valued.
With women, a society showing social foresight, could adjust Citizen's Income to compensate women for the time spent in creating the labour power of the next generation, by giving them an enhanced CI and again allowing them to work flexibly. This is what many women appear to want to do.
In terms of practical politics, CI has the advantage of being able to shape the management of society by small financial adjustments, rather than by rigid centralised rules which have given socialism a bad name and tend to create black markets by people circumventing them.
Philosophically, I would suggest CI helps to recognise the role of production outside the purely capitalist sphere, and makes citizens more than just humans who have nothing to sell but their labour power.
Technologically, the advent of computers make these systems possible, and can combine individual flexibility with centralisation of information.
Chris Burford
London