Guaranteed Annual Income Discussed on The Sunday Edition

It has been gone over, quite a lot.  I recommend the two books I noted above.  As I mentioned, work disincentive had been apparently disproven by the studies, people want to do meaningful work, and will work.  But there is a whole lot more to explore on that topic of effect on work, esp. re minimum wage which it was originally intended to replace (via negative income tax propounded by more libertarian economists like Friedman) and nature of work & work conditions &c & c.  But Theobald, the theorist from another side of the political spectrum, wrote of decoupling work from money I think, making for equitable acceptance of everyone as economic citizen.  The effciencies arguments particularly appeal to those on the "right", like Sen. Segal.  You can see there is very much to talk about, and has been talked about already, which is why study is always important.

I agree that the typically used name is faulty, and have said so in discussion among GPC-ers who might one day highlight the policy.  "Basic income" seems to be the bland preferential substitute these days.  Note well in argument with those who'd say, as you put it, "'the world owes everyone a living?'", that already we accept a measure of collective responsibilty to actually pay people when not working, the programme addresses redundancies & efficiencies, and while some might be deterred in the short term from working more like some others would like to see, there are all kinds of undervalued work that stand to be undertaken with a surer non-stigmatized safety net, and it really is safe to assume that people seek meaningful employment & will indeed work, remember the experimental results. People are counted in, in all their variety, and they then count themselves in (one way to explain why I have touted the political slogan for this, "Everyone counts", or "Everybody counts" -- I should as an aside also note for those following the religious school funding arguments, that ed. funding equity is akin, count them in & they'll count themselves in).  Also it is easy to throw off right wing objectors by showing that Friedman & Stigler were initiators.  And to those on the left who'd decry it for that very reason, must be countered that they were proposing such policy because they took seriously the problems of abiding poverty.

Be careful about connexion with EI: while I think this is appropriate, some who favour GAI/BI find this wrongful (although I think they err).  I will advertise  particular "green" sticking points with me about gai altogether, and that is its usual conception as a national program with highest common denominator regional standard (inflationary & potentially worsening poverty), assuming &  even promoting labour mobility (where's the localism), its reliance on centrally-controlled money (the monetary connexion i feel is green-critical, and i have been urging exploration of this among greens for a very long time already)...but i won't go further to dampen enthusiasm or a creative exploration of an important topic.  Maybe after our discussion of several months ago I referred to above, some GPC principals will openly discuss here. 

Again, I agree on the brand name problem in our culture.  But I'm not so sure I get your objection with the single parent example.  Remember, there are very many uncoordinated income supports already existing.  If you believe at-home work is supportable, why split it off, why not validate it as such, as any valuable human activity, including caring for children, and so then what's wrong with paying for it? In that instance,  some Greens would take exception to that being a pro-natalist policy.  But that is as problematic as worrying that people won't go out to produce something (produce what?). Apart from the anti-populationist arguments (which I almost completely reject, see eg another recent thread here), there is no telling how people's reproductive behaviour would adjust.  One important point for some is to offer sonething like half a stipend for minors, so having children is not a self-enrichment programme through a bi/gai.  I don't see it that way, but there's another example of internal divisiveness among arguers for gai.  And what I believe is the ultimate obstacle to acceptance is cultural,  generating apprehension in the face of uncertainties about how gai would affect fundamental relationships & attitudes.  But from aboriginal entitlements to old age security to unemployment and disability, each programme can have its own reasons for self-maintenance, some historically better than others, and arguers on the political left might tend to favour the purported sociological expertise applicable to various circumstances, seeing gai this way as a right wing attempt at oversimplification.  Simplification it is, but it need not eliminate all the other existing programmes, just trim them down so they can have sharper focus, with better applied expertise, all the while making it better for claimants and easier for the general population.  My main recommendation is that GPC put it out there for discussion, no other political party I think is prepared to touch it, advocates have managed to insert it into European & Cdn. public forums again, the opportunity attendant upon the intl. financial-led breakdown.  And on that last point, I return to the centrality of including in the  discussion of gai the even deeper far less considered topic of money altogether, the topics are intertwined, and it may very well be that those riding the banking establishments were behind stifling gai back then & would feel their hegemony threatened now, although the current burgeoning crisis might be too much for them to manipulate any longer.  As I see it it philosophically boils down to this, is your fellow Cdn. part of a fraternity or is everyone to be seen as a risk?  A mix of the two no doubt.  So then who administers to the risk? If the debt-based financial establishment does some things well, why need it necessarily intrude on human basics like food, shelter, education, health care?  By linking human fundamentals too closely to an internationalized & vicious financialized world, uncaring & destructive policies from afar do intrude & disrupt local self-reliance, as long that is as people are stuck in an unimaginative box.  It is possible to figure one's way out of the box, and discussion around GAI/BI, addressing insulation of those basic (preferably localized) human concerns from uncaring depredation & advantage-taking, maybe to separate these from banking as it is &c altogether, maybe GAI-talk is a good way to get people thinking creatively.  I should say that I am one of those very long-time green-minded far less worried about Greens in Parliament than having Greens have beneficial effect however had.  So if a child of GPC discussion & putting it out there is its eventual adoption by whomever, addressing the kinds of things I mention, it's worth it even with the political risk.  Let the Liberals steal something else.  Except that I do think their demise (like PCs) might be well on the way, and there should be a future for an ecology-oriented political party, esp. to complement an equity-focused one like the NDP, and we as Greens should accept the appropriateness of regional parties like the BQ in our giant national configuration, and even admit that Cons. validly represent some (a few) legitimate interests, mostly regionally-centred, as well.  Maybe the biggest Cdn. voice for GAI now is someone who is probably one of those homeless Tories, Sen. Hugh Segal. Such people one day should find a home in an improved Green party (by whatever name), and intelligently thoughtful & open talk about difficult topics actually bravely hosted by a political party can serve to build a basis for that sufficient improvement.

Please take note of one thing I noted above, that for some GAI-by-whatever-name advocates, EI is altogether separate and should not even be broached on this topic. I do disagree, but I am maintaining that existing programs should mostly continue, but more sharply targetted, alongside a "GAI".  Merging this programme with that or another is more of a muddle-through method, although I admit it might be only what's politically saleable just now.  One must try to grasp how comprehensive a GAI appraoch is, it is not about toying with programmes.  Some even try to comprehensively link it with broad commons' taxation, carbon, stumpage, etc., replacing other  taxation.  Why worry about the name for political presentation so much, when proposed content is far from clear?  A simplest & originating way to introduce a GAI would be by NIT, "negative income tax", where everyone would have to somehow be drawn into filing, at least indirectly through another's return, with deductions raised, a payment going to those who fall below the "basic income" level indicated.  If that were gradually brought in, one programme after another trimmed back & better targetted & the remainder, at least conceptually, rolled into the  NIT regime, maybe that would be more Canadian-ly saleable.  There's is too much to consider before figuring on a saleable name.  Think & talk much about it first.  Show Greens are out front yet again, and not just in a superficial way. I think I've thrown out enough strands for people to pick up on & start considering.